Long Travel vs. Standard Travel

Message

CANNIBALKID · #11 Post by **CANNIBALKID** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:05 pm

if you mainly only ride in the woods i would stick to the +2's and stay away from the +3's. just makes it easier to get around in the woods for me. it might save you from having to get off your quad and push it out of a hole.

Exodus · #12 Post by **Exodus** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:53 am

Personally, If I was in your shoes, I would be thinking about what I ride most. If its woods, then a +1 arm would be the way to go. If you do a plus 1 then you could change the front width by 2", either 1" narrower, or 1"inch wider by offest of rims.
Example: stock width cannibal is 44" on the front, if you add the +1 arms you got 46". For MX, you could put 2/3 offset rims on and get to 48". For tight woods riding, go with a 4/1 offset rims and put the bike back to 44". That sounds the most logical if you ride the woods more than the track. If its the other way around and the woods are wide enough to get a 46" wide bike through, go with the +2 and use the wheels to get to 50" and back to 46".
As far as long travel goes, its all about the coin and the look, you can live without it, but do you like the look and feel of standard travel. Put it like this, its pretty easy to roll up the windows on the chevy luv, but its way cooler to push a button to power windows on that Rancho suspended extended cab.

Happyboy · #13 Post by **Happyboy** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:00 pm

QUOTE

Originally posted by Exodus
Put it like this, its pretty easy to roll up the windows on the chevy luv, but its way cooler to push a button to power windows on that Rancho suspended extended cab.

I would say it is more like a Chevy Blazer vs. GMC Yukon. Pretty much same freaking vehicle but the GMC does have some minor upgrades.

CptHook · #14 Post by **CptHook** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:33 pm

So wait Happyboy, do you think the LT is a good investment or no?

Cdale_racer_669 · Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:40 am

in my opinion it depends on how much money you have. if you have enough get LT, if u are on a tight budget then dont.

jlm996s · #16 Post by **jlm996s** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:12 am

I don't know if you guys have seen this yet, but they say pretty much the same thing Gabe(86atc250r) was saying about LT.

They have some other interesting fact/opinions.
Clicky

Exodus · #17 Post by **Exodus** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:49 am

OK, Happy, you the award for better analogy. Ya'll get my point though. If you got the money and like the ride, invest in long travel. I did, and I'm not looking back, I luv it. But I had to save more money to do it. Its all about the budget and how much time you have to get the quad to look the way you want it. Theres really no disadvantage of long travel other than the light pocket book when your done. If you buy long travel, you wont regret it, until your late on the light bill.

FUGITV · #18 Post by **FUGITV** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:28 am

i have standard travel Elka triple rate SSD with +2 lonestars and i really am happy with that setup. i only went this way due to the fact that i got the arms used for 250 bux. i seem to have more suspension problems on the rear than the front. i also race MX, since i forgot to mention that earlier. just my 2 cents:drink:

theJeStEr1340 · #19 Post by **theJeStEr1340** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:43 pm

QUOTE

Originally posted by FUGITV
i have standard travel Elka triple rate SSD with +2 lonestars and i really am happy with that setup. i only went this way due to the fact that i got the arms used for 250 bux. i seem to have more suspension problems on the rear than the front. i also race MX, since i forgot to mention that earlier. just my 2 cents:drink:

****, if you ever see another deal like that let me know!