In my research on aftermarket long travel kits there appears to be some inconsisantcys in the amount of travel they provide for a given plus dimension. Where are you guys measuring the dimensions at? For instance a +3 kit from one vender is 14" and a similar kit is 11 1/2" both with the same length rear trailing arms. Granted by moving shock mounts you can increase or decrease the amount of travel however the CVs are only going to take so much of of an angle before they break. Then there are the +4s that also claim 14" of travel. That I can see as the axles are longer allowing more travel as the CV angularity is less. Please clarify.
Can-Am What determins the inch of travel on the aftermarket kits
- Thread starter Odyknuck
- Start date
tech3sandcars
Tech3 Sandcars
Its all about how much angle the CV's can handle, you can mount a shock anywhere you want but if you go beyond the limit of the CV your gonna have problems. Different manufacturers of suspension just make a different decision on how far they want to push the CV, thus the overall travel.
The main limiting factors for the amount of travel are tire diameter and the amount of ground clearance we want when everything is bottomed out.. and for the droop side (extension of the suspension) it usually has to do with how much angle the cv joints, ball joints, and tie rods can take. And yes.. the longer you make the arms, the less angle those joints see. Sometimes the shock locations and shock travel will also dictate the amount depending on the application.
Plus, some people might have a different way of measuring the actual wheel travel. Sure, the tires might be able to move a said amount, but in the real world, the chassis would be flat on the ground etc.. or the shock manufacturer doesn't make the shocks to the exact specs, but pretty close, so the numbers can vary a little bit.
The numbers we post are what the real world travel numbers are, measured from the tip of the cv stub shaft in the center of the wheel. We always have a few inches of ground clearance (3 to 4) left at full compression because the ground is never perfectly flat, and the tires do compress during higher loads, so the chassis will still sometimes come in contact with the ground. Some companies don't really take that into account, so they claim more than what they are really actually using.
Plus, some people might have a different way of measuring the actual wheel travel. Sure, the tires might be able to move a said amount, but in the real world, the chassis would be flat on the ground etc.. or the shock manufacturer doesn't make the shocks to the exact specs, but pretty close, so the numbers can vary a little bit.
The numbers we post are what the real world travel numbers are, measured from the tip of the cv stub shaft in the center of the wheel. We always have a few inches of ground clearance (3 to 4) left at full compression because the ground is never perfectly flat, and the tires do compress during higher loads, so the chassis will still sometimes come in contact with the ground. Some companies don't really take that into account, so they claim more than what they are really actually using.
"so they claim more than what they are really actually using." Hense my reason for asking. Hell even BRP claims 10" and my "X" really only has 8.5" in the front. Just so we understand each other I am not new to supension dynamics and have built some of my own. I feel this is a good topic of conversation in this forum as I am sure others are asking similar questions or should be.
We have ran across the same things with the factory and other lt kits we have uninstalled when customers were upgrading to ours. We also post all of our shock specs on our website so any shock company the customer is partial to, can get shocks made for our kits if they are so inclined. But when you get shocks we sell, they are going to be tuned for our kits and the type of riding you do, as well as be as close to the specs as possible. Elka always makes the specs to our max numbers so you can get every inch of available travel out of them.
G-
G-
Duner Dave
New Member
Thanks, nice to grab a little knowledge once in awhile.
Slowpoke Rodriguez
Member
I think one of the main differences is if the manufacturer lets the chassis nearly bottom out at full compression, that could be a gain of typically 3"s over a properly set up kit.
MAGNUM OFFROAD
Official UTVUnderground Sponsor & Founder
Wheel travel should be measured from the stub axle center point, to ground. When properly measured the Commander X does infact have almost 10" of wheel travel (Stock). I think it was around 9.75" +/- if I remember correctly.
I think you might have a good idea there for some. I relocated the rear diff back on my Arctic Cat and then had J-arms built. Fits within most racing bodies rules and provided for much more clearance on the axle travel itself as well as giving a longer wheelbase. Having a longer driveshaft built was simple...
CV angles are the only thing giving me fits right now, but Turner Cycles is building a set of HD axles and CVs that should fix the problem. Doing this, I have 17 inches rear travel on the Prowler now... Front is still limited to 16 though due to axles contacting the frame...
badassmav
Well-Known Member
LSR GREG summed it up pretty good. All of the newer long-travel UTV's (Maverick, XP 900, Wildcat, Deere 850I, etc.) will share the pecking order of wheel travel constraints. 1st factor:
Tire dia. and bump travel. How close to the ground are you willing to let your car bump? Of all the UTV's I've seen, you will run out of ground clearance far before binding your cv joints. 2nd factor:
Droop. Again, most of the utes I've seen are limited by the excessive cv joint operating angles as the suspension droops. This is due to the mounting height of the front and rear diff's. They cannot be mounted below the frame line now, can they?
Shocks are not a factor that limits travel, due to the many options of extended and compressed length shocks available. Hell, I just finished building a Maverick that I used Foxs' 14" & 16" internal bypass truck shocks on the front and rear respectively. No silly liottle UTV shocks will keep a fabricator from achieving the desired wheel travel. I'm stroking the rear shocks at an ultra-low ratio of 1.3:1 for 19 1/4" of usable wheel travel, while the fronts are stroking at a respectable 1.5:1 ratio for just under 18" of usable wheel travel. Heres the 3rd and most important reliability factor when talking usable wheel travel:
cv joints working at compounded angles (i.e. extending the wheelbase w/out moving the differentials). The majority of the long travel kit manufacturers are guilty of this. I will give you a real-world example of this industry standard that is parking race cars alongside race courses around the world!
A stock Can-am Maverick has a claimed Horsepower rating of 101 H.P. On the dyno, bone stock, it will produce about 70 horsepower at the rear wheels due to work (horsepower) having to be transmitted through a compound angle. It is a fundamental certainty, and is easily calculated with basic trigenometry. The bad deal is that while Can-am pumps out more ponies at the flywheel/crank, it is at the same time introducing an un-acceptable radial load upon the cv's. The horsepower did not disappear into thin air, but rather was released by the way of excessive heat and shear loads as a result of the increased friction through the poor little cv joints. Here's your lesson:
I moved the rear housing back 8 1/2" on the Mav, while only moving the rear wheelbase back by 5", left the motor bone stock, and dyno'd it. I'm now getting 82 horsepower at the rear wheels! Most all of who seen our car race said it is being over-driven, and will not last. We'll see how it lasts at Vegas to Reno. I intentionally over-suspended, extended, widened and weighted it. It has an undesirable power to weight ratio of 20 lbs. per horsepower, but can reliably run into 2-3 foot deep whoops at 65 or 70 mph w/out upsetting the attitude or overworking the shocks. Weight bias is 46/54 front to rear respectively, so it flies straight and true. Enough boasting. The point here is that what travel you do get, you use well, and reliably. I properly measure wheel travel at the centerline of the tire, in a vertical path, and keep the wheel rate as low as possible by stroking as much of a long travel shock as I possibly can.
Beware of kits that extend the wheelbase and not the diff's, and say the longer axles make up for the increased wheel travels' demands on your cv joints.
Tire dia. and bump travel. How close to the ground are you willing to let your car bump? Of all the UTV's I've seen, you will run out of ground clearance far before binding your cv joints. 2nd factor:
Droop. Again, most of the utes I've seen are limited by the excessive cv joint operating angles as the suspension droops. This is due to the mounting height of the front and rear diff's. They cannot be mounted below the frame line now, can they?
Shocks are not a factor that limits travel, due to the many options of extended and compressed length shocks available. Hell, I just finished building a Maverick that I used Foxs' 14" & 16" internal bypass truck shocks on the front and rear respectively. No silly liottle UTV shocks will keep a fabricator from achieving the desired wheel travel. I'm stroking the rear shocks at an ultra-low ratio of 1.3:1 for 19 1/4" of usable wheel travel, while the fronts are stroking at a respectable 1.5:1 ratio for just under 18" of usable wheel travel. Heres the 3rd and most important reliability factor when talking usable wheel travel:
cv joints working at compounded angles (i.e. extending the wheelbase w/out moving the differentials). The majority of the long travel kit manufacturers are guilty of this. I will give you a real-world example of this industry standard that is parking race cars alongside race courses around the world!
A stock Can-am Maverick has a claimed Horsepower rating of 101 H.P. On the dyno, bone stock, it will produce about 70 horsepower at the rear wheels due to work (horsepower) having to be transmitted through a compound angle. It is a fundamental certainty, and is easily calculated with basic trigenometry. The bad deal is that while Can-am pumps out more ponies at the flywheel/crank, it is at the same time introducing an un-acceptable radial load upon the cv's. The horsepower did not disappear into thin air, but rather was released by the way of excessive heat and shear loads as a result of the increased friction through the poor little cv joints. Here's your lesson:
I moved the rear housing back 8 1/2" on the Mav, while only moving the rear wheelbase back by 5", left the motor bone stock, and dyno'd it. I'm now getting 82 horsepower at the rear wheels! Most all of who seen our car race said it is being over-driven, and will not last. We'll see how it lasts at Vegas to Reno. I intentionally over-suspended, extended, widened and weighted it. It has an undesirable power to weight ratio of 20 lbs. per horsepower, but can reliably run into 2-3 foot deep whoops at 65 or 70 mph w/out upsetting the attitude or overworking the shocks. Weight bias is 46/54 front to rear respectively, so it flies straight and true. Enough boasting. The point here is that what travel you do get, you use well, and reliably. I properly measure wheel travel at the centerline of the tire, in a vertical path, and keep the wheel rate as low as possible by stroking as much of a long travel shock as I possibly can.
Beware of kits that extend the wheelbase and not the diff's, and say the longer axles make up for the increased wheel travels' demands on your cv joints.
badassmav
Well-Known Member
Glad to. I'm still learning how to move around in the underground, so bear with me. I'll try joining the forum now. You guys aren't gonna gang up on me now, are you? I still don't know the difference between a post and a thread. Or how a quick reply differs from a regular reply! Hope I am able to contribute goodwill and gain knowledge with all of you Maverick owners out there. I'm pretty introverted, but if you get me going, I become quite the chatty guy.
I think you'll get along just fine! Your previous post in this thread is full of information that I've known for years, but have a hard time putting into words :banghead: I have always hated the shock angle and (motion)ratio of most aftermarket suspensions. The way you built the Maverick has me thinking about building mine up like that and keeping it for a while!
badassmav
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the attaboy! Believe it or not, I tried not to over-complicate my post. I usually bore most people to death with my over-thinking and analysis of EVERYTHING! I'm like a math/science junkie. I'm in as dark-a-place as I have ever been in my life. I haven't cared about anything for quite a few years now. Been trying to get by w/the bare minimum, and now I am thrust back into being somebody by exposing my natural abilities. I, along with my bro built this ute for free in 10 or 12 weeks for my cousin (Marc B.) I cant tell you how easy this build has been (except the consecutive100 hour weeks!) for me. I am having a very difficult time trying to tame down this "kit" I am designing for the masses. I see most all of the aftermarket guys moving the wheels out, back, over, and where ever, over-working the hell out of the poor stock ball joints and other crucial components, stroking 8 or 10" travel shocks at a 2:1 ratio, just laying those bad boys all the way down there for Mr. leverage to take full advantage of advantage of, and it just amazes me that a guy will spend 6k for some over the counter parts, and dolled-up weldments they sell as suspension components. I'm working very dilligently to offer a real, race-proven design that I can feel good about selling for 6k. Hell, I even thought about just offering a how-to kit w/thoroughly illustrated instructions and DXF files of all the necessary components for the over-eager do-it-your-selfers out there. Yeah, I'd sell about 2 of those kits until the 1st capitalist came along and hi-jacked my designs,...... ahh f--- it! You cant give anymore without a line full of takers in the wait. I kinda like the idea that I can offer valid advice and solutions to peoples' recreational challenges through this electronic medium.
Now I'm just venting! Oh, I really tried to find a Maverick forum, but failed! Is there a specific place on this site labeled that? I'm bouncing back and forth between this laptop and the shop I live in front of, trying to get the race car in dominant form, all the while enjoying my interaction with all of you! My mind is a fruit tree. Pick it and enjoy!!!!!!!
Now I'm just venting! Oh, I really tried to find a Maverick forum, but failed! Is there a specific place on this site labeled that? I'm bouncing back and forth between this laptop and the shop I live in front of, trying to get the race car in dominant form, all the while enjoying my interaction with all of you! My mind is a fruit tree. Pick it and enjoy!!!!!!!
Ok so this might be a dumb question but if you have a long travel kit will changin tire size effect cv angles at all? Aka if u go to a bigger tire what will that do to your over all suspension profile? If anything we were considering moving up to a 30" tire on the race car and wasn't sure what effects that will have to the suspension, I know it will rob a little power, possible gain a little top speed and ground clearance.... Am I completely wrong?
badassmav
Well-Known Member
Regarding your longer drive shaft: Can you please forward me the contact info for the shop that modified your drive shaft? I've been having an awful time finding anyone here in San Diego who will do it for me. Greg from Total Performance in Santee did our last set (front & rear) for us as a favor. Shops say they don't have the tooling to balance the drive shaft once completed, and the metric sized tubing is also a problem. Thanks a bunch...Reid
badassmav
Well-Known Member
When your suspension bottoms out, what stops it from traveling up any further? Do you have physical bump stops, or is your shock absorber bottoming out and doubling as a bump stop? Do you know how close to the ground your frame is when the suspension is fully bottomed out? Facts that I need to give you a sound response. Thanks...Reid Johnson
Similar threads
