144" skid

[mopar nut]

im looking for a light 144" mountain skid that wont be to hard to put on my 2004 yamaha rx warrior. im all so looking for a 1.5" track if u can think of any.

THANKS GUYS!
YOU ROCK!!

 

[mopar nut]

no one can think of any? even like A 153 or something close to that im also looking for a new tunnel for it

 

[maxdlx]

fIND A 136 AND SET IT BACK INCHES. IF YOU ARE RIDING POWDER IT WILL HELP THE ATTACK ANGLE. mAXDLX

Sorry hit the caps

 

[LazyBastard]

I suggest that unless you have a skid that is compatible with setback, that you do NOT. Be very certain about the skid. For example, the warrior skid is NOT compatible with setback -- the change in geometry will cause the track to tighten when the suspension is compressed. It won't be able to stretch that far and will cause a reduction in the usable portion of the suspension and will cause excessive stress on just about every part of the suspension, resulting in damage.

Some skids, like expertX ARE compatible with being set back.

 

[ahicks]

I suggest that unless you have a skid that is compatible with setback, that you do NOT. Be very certain about the skid. For example, the warrior skid is NOT compatible with setback -- the change in geometry will cause the track to tighten when the suspension is compressed. It won't be able to stretch that far and will cause a reduction in the usable portion of the suspension and will cause excessive stress on just about every part of the suspension, resulting in damage.

Some skids, like expertX ARE compatible with being set back.

Oh boy, help me out with that idea. Please expand a little if you wouldn't mind. How would you know if the suspension in question is compatible with setback? What exactly is changing on the Warrior suspension that is unique to it, not others? I can understand the front leg of the parallelogram becoming longer, but wouldn't that be the same with any suspension? Thanks, -Al

 

[maxdlx]

I set back my old pro action and had no problems witht the track getting to tight. I went from 121 to 126 which is 2.5 inches, but hartman and Mtn Performance all set proactions back a lot more than 4 inches. When you set a skid back it does change the leverage on the skid, and will make it act softer, but that can be over come. I have seen guys who set there pro action back 7.5 inches and it work fine. I am doing my pro x and it works fine. Make real sure you get all of the holes back exactly the same. Maxdlx

 

[LazyBastard]

No, it doesn't make it act softer, it acts harder, but it is so minor that its not even worth considering. It will load up the front suspension a little more.

Proaction absolutely can NOT be set back 7.5 inches and still work. Might work under circumstances where it doesn't matter if it compresses or not (for example deep powder).


ahicks: difficult to tell what suspensions work and don't. Generally, the steeper the front arm or the earlier the coupling, the less it will work. A very flat front arm will work great when set back.

 

[rxrider]

The ZX-2 should work just fine. Comes as a 121 base skid with extensions to 136, 144, 151. It's lightweight and affordable.

http://www.adboivin.com/zx2_suspension_home.aspx

 

[maxdlx]

So Hartman and Mtn Perf have been doing it wrong for all these years. I have never heard of the pro action skid binding due to relocation. I have heard of the mono doing it, but never the Pro Action. When I moved mine 2.5 inches it softened the springs a bunch. I know because after the relocate,to get 50/50 gap I had to add alot of spring preasure. The 2 above mentioned after market shops, and 2 shock service shops both told me this would soften the setting by moving the skid, and it did. maxdlx

 

[ahicks]

So Hartman and Mtn Perf have been doing it wrong for all these years. I have never heard of the pro action skid binding due to relocation. I have heard of the mono doing it, but never the Pro Action. When I moved mine 2.5 inches it softened the springs a bunch. I know because after the relocate,to get 50/50 gap I had to add alot of spring preasure. The 2 above mentioned after market shops, and 2 shock service shops both told me this would soften the setting by moving the skid, and it did. maxdlx

If the skid moves back, wouldn't it figure that there would be more weight placed on the skis (all else being equal)? If there's more weight on the skis, and the conversion doesn't add a lot of weight, it would follow there is less load on the back - assuming the geometry hasn't changed. No? Not familiar with the mod/conversion, just guessing.

 

[maxdlx]

think of this. Is it easier to carry a load close to your body or out away from it. You are bridgeing a bigger gap. All I know is what I was told and what I actually experienced. Maxdlx

 

[LazyBastard]

So Hartman and Mtn Perf have been doing it wrong for all these years. I have never heard of the pro action skid binding due to relocation. I have heard of the mono doing it, but never the Pro Action. When I moved mine 2.5 inches it softened the springs a bunch. I know because after the relocate,to get 50/50 gap I had to add alot of spring preasure. The 2 above mentioned after market shops, and 2 shock service shops both told me this would soften the setting by moving the skid, and it did. maxdlx

The hartman kit is a complete scam. Causes binding as I mentioned. Just because someone sells it does NOT mean that it works. It DOESN'T work.

 

[maxdlx]

Then why has it worked on 2 of my sleds, and dozens of Mtn perf sleds. There are other factors that can cause binding. if done right, there is no way it will cause the track to get that tight. As long as you don't change the geometry, the way the skid works won't change. Maxdlx

 

[LazyBastard]

You need me to get into the geometry? I can prove it to you mathematically, however judging by your responses so far, I doubt that you would be receptive. Fact is that the system ONLY works when the track approach angle, return angle, front arm angle, and back arm angle are almost the same. If the arms are much steeper than the track, then instead of parallelograms, you have TRIANGLES. Parallelograms retain the same circumference when you change the angles. Triangles do NOT.

If you want to prove it to yourself, draw this;

Two straight lines each 2" long forming a 90 degree angle. Measure the hypotenuse (hint: it'll be 2.83"). That means that the triangle has a circumference of 6.83".

Now draw another two lines, but make the angle 45 degrees. When you measure the length of the line connecting the two free ends, you'll find that it is only 1.53". That means that the new circumference is 5.53" and that the circumference changed by 1.3". You going to argue with that?


As for your sleds, it did NOT work for you. The fact that you only went 2.5" means that you could manage it just by running your track a little loose. When you start going to 11.5" (relocation 4" + extension 7.5"), which is common for kits they sell, then you have the track trying to stretch out by OVER FOUR INCHES!! Not going to happen!

 

[maxdlx]

That is why you move all 3 mounts the same. I can draw what ever anyone wants me to. But I have done it, and it worked. I relocated one the 4 inches. the only thing is, is you move the front arm too, not just colapse it like Hartman does. It works try it. Maxdlx