Ski Stance

[fxnytrortxkid]

Grizz the +1 kit comes with redesigned spindles also. Which changes a lot. The change on a arms along has to be a bit more drastic without that IMO

 

[kyleg]

I'm interested if the price is right. Looking forward to see what you come up with.

 

[kyleg]

If you want a test rider would be happy to help also

 

[mcamzr]

If you want a test rider would be happy to help also

Good call!! I'm in I ride 100% trail

 

[Mountaintech]

What's the +3 going to do for trail performance?

It creates a longer "wheelbase". Can make for a smoother ride, but if you push the spindles too far forward, the same geometry changes that make it handle better off trail, can create instability on the trail in some situations IMO. Made good headway on trail arms today. I changed them to 2" forward.

 

[grizztracks]

I understand that it lengthens the "wheelbase" but I don't believe it's going to bridge bumps like a longer track would do. I think it will bottom on the skid plate even more and make it less responsive in the turns. I've already increased "wheelbase" by relocating the skid and now with the addition of a 136" track I don't think I want to be any longer for trail riding. The 43" +2 stance along with caster/camber adjustments might improve trail performance but we won't know until it's tested. It will be interesting to hear the results from true trail riders.

 

[fxnytrortxkid]

I know it's my opinion. Buy I feel the skis forward is more signifigant than the track balance wise. The skis forward moves motor weight closer to feet. the track moving back allows for a more stable platform out back to bridge bumps. I 100% see your skepticism. But I think it will be awesome on trail. I know it looks funny with shocks angled back but I also think it kinda puts your body input more into the way the sled works. I like the shocks at a rake. Btw grizz i have good feeling my subframe is tweaked a bit so we will get to chat more when I have u fix that lol.

 

[Mountaintech]

Grizz, read the reviews or sales pitches for the aftermarket companies who make 3" front ends (Mountaintech, Zbroz, Skinz, etc). They claim improvements all around on the Nytro. I think even that "Race" front end out there has forward spindles to improve handling.

Most of the kits are designed for off trail. Zbroz offers a 43" but only with +1 forward position. Zbroz didn't go to +3 forward with their wider arms so I'm assuming after testing on trail sleds they determined that a lesser forward stance was optimal which I tend to believe also.

They all claim to improve performance but from past experience I don't believe what they claim . I only believe what works for me.

What do you believe would work best for you?

 

[grizztracks]

That's a tough question. I'm still running the 08 front geometry with no significant complaints and after riding several Nytro's with the new geometry I'm not convinced they are better than mine. I've concentrated more on suspension setup since purchasing a nytro which plays a big part when trying to navigate the trails around here. I recently started thinking more about the a-arm setup and possible improvements so I tried the Slicast arms which allow for caster/camber adjustments. Unfortunately, those arms don't fit the 2008 geometry properly. I like the Zbroz 43", +1" forward. Maybe something similar but with some adjustability for caster/camber and reusing the stock spindles to keep cost down. I still like the idea of a 44" but with Curve skis I know that would cause me problems with trailering the sled.

 

[mcamzr]

I would think that a 43 ish +1 might be the way to go. I have nowhere near the experience with this that grizz or some others might have bilut here in MI riding 100% trail they get whooped up pretty good a lot of times, I don't think that stretching the gap between the skis and track by 3 or more inches is a good idea. I have cased some woops in the trail as it is.

 

[fxnytrortxkid]

On a positive note. Company's like cr and hygear make factoryish +- a little in length arms... Zbroz makes a +1 and barcode an skins makes a +5. If he determins +2 or +3 works best that along with any added adjustments along with a reasonable price (mtn arm price $799) he will have his niche and not be stepping on toes and providing a product he had tested an developed an zeroed in on. Not gonna say +3 wouldn't be better or worse than +2 or +1 but I'm sure we will all find out. I'm kinda excited for these and plan to use them with my jre spindles and hope to find an 18.25" long shock too mount on there to raise hight an add travel along with the stretch and added balance and the 128 relocate I have I think I will be straight dialed.

 

[rrxx-1]

I like the idea of 43" and +2" or +3", I am thinking that is the sweet spot.

 

[Mountaintech]

Yesterday.

 

[grizztracks]

Nice! is that the 43" with +2 forward? With your setup how is the upper balljoint spacer thickness determined and how does it enhance performance? A few years back I played around with an offset that spaced the balljoint away from the spindle and also allowed for minor caster/camber adjustments. I went as far as a 1" spacer but really didn't know what I was looking for and was concerned with the strength of the offset and putting to much stress on the spindle so I abandoned the idea.

 

[fxnytrortxkid]

Not gonna mount shock same as with the mtn ones?

Really like that idea grizz.