Starky is correct that it's exactly the same as using spacers.

Also one other bad side effect of reversed wheels is more feedback into the handlebars, which can be dangerous to both your wrists & actually cause a crash in circumstances that normally would not.

My recommendation is to leave the wheels as they are until you can get some control arms. In many cases you will actually be slower with reversed wheels or spacers because the increased feedback to the bars will lower your confidence level going into any kind of rough terrain.

About the only place where they will not hurt you that bad is if you're flat tracking.

 

Hey starky,

Using wheel spacers exposes your caliper too.

And you have it backwards. Widening your stance (whether it be spacers or flipped wheels) gives you less feedback to the handlebars. The wider front track you have, the more leverage the ground has on your shocks. We have flipped several banshees, two warriors, and one raptor. I prefer flipping them to spacers because you can still mount the wheel right up to the hub, rather than to a spacer. It's not as good as having extended a-arms of course, but it is better than spacers. And hey, if you can nail that caliper, you need to be riding a different bike. Sport bikes aren't made for that kind of brush bustin.


~HoundDog

 

HoundDog,

You're right man, good back-up. Your stuff is still out in the wind even with the spacers.

 

Incorrect.

Since the ball joint pivot relationship to the shock mount does not change, the leverage upon the shock does not change.

However, the tire centerline to ball joint relationship does change, which gives the tire more leverage against the ball joint pivot, which in turn gives the tire more leverage against the handlebars, which in turn means your hands and wrists get more input from the trail, and anything you may hit on the trail.

By installing aftermarket control arms, you move the ball joint location out, the shock mount stays the same. In this case, leverage against the shocks increases.

This is why most people seeking to increase width do so with control arms instead of wheel spacers or flipped wheels.

 

I agree that the ball joint location does not change resulting in no change in the amount of leverage to the handlebars. However, the point of impact to the ground is lengthened from the pivot point of the a-arms allowing more leverage on the suspension resulting in a smoother ride and less action to the handlebars.

~HoundDog

 

I agree with 1986 I had mine flipped and felt it way too much on my bars so I flipped it back



Pat

 

Re-read my post HoundDog06. Think about it a little more. You're still not getting it.

Remember, the ball joints essentially pivot in two axis's - one being the left/right turning of the tires, the other being the up and down motion of the control arms.

Reversing the wheels does not affect the up and down axis, however, it does affect the left and right axis. Keep in mind this only pertains to a double control arm setup. A single control arm setup is different.

Here's a snippet from a discussion I had with someone on another messageboard, maybe it will help clear it up in your mind:

Quote from someone else:Response:
Actually, it would not, that would violate the laws of physics.

Using your example, a wheel with a ridiculously exaggerated 10' offest would not put more stress against the shock, however - it would put more stress against the ball joints and spindle.

The only way to put more stress against the shock would be to extend the pivot point (move the ball joints 10' out) while leaving the shock mount in the same position.

Try the experiment (actually, don't, you'll likely bend the spindle as it will try to become the pivot point)

Negating the effects of the pipe's flex, the force required to move the control arm assembly "X" distance will be the same as if you directly grabbed the spindle with your hand.

Since the distance you move the pipe and the distance the spindle will move will be the same (again, assuming the pipe is strong enough not to flex), no leverage is applied and the force required will also remain the same, regardless of how long the pipe attached to the spindle is.

Now, if your pipe was directly connected to the lower control arm (without the pivot of a ball joint), the results would be different since you would move the pipe a long distance to move the control arm a short distance.

 

ATC,

I am not trying to start a fight but if you want to use the laws of physics to argue your case, you need to go back to school and take a few physics courses. You are majorly misquoting the same laws you are trying to use as an argument. Your main problem is that your'e misjudging the ball joints to be the pivot point here when the actual pivot point is the a-arm mounts. The person whom you quoted is right. If you use a 10' pole to raise the spindle, it will require less force at ten feet than it would by trying to move the spindle by hand. This demonstrates the principle of a type two lever. The Fulcrum (pivot point) is at the frame where the a-arms pivot. The load is at the shock and the force is at the point where pressure is being applied. In a type two lever, the most leverage can be obtained by placing the load as close to the fulcrum as possible and by extending the force as far from the load as possible.

Ergo, by flipping the wheels of a quad to make a wider stance, the force from the ground impact of the tires is moved away from the load (shocks) giving the force more leverage to compress the shock. This makes for a smoother ride. Not to mention a wider stance makes for a more stable ride.

I have a minor in Physics so if you would like to argue further the laws of leverage and force, feel free. I am more than willing to put your misleadings to rest.

~HoundDog

 

On a trail bike its not smoother at all I loved it when I went duneing but for trail riding there was tons more felt in the bars and if you were wider then the trail you FELT EVERYTHING! If your going to trail ride I'd get a steering stabilizer to help you control it!


Pat

 

If you have a minor in physics you need to go back to school (and this time study more, party less) or take another good hard look at control arm / front end design because you obviously have no idea of the forces at work and how the various front end parts work together & affect each other.

Please, tell me in all your wisedom how you can have more leverage upon the shock absorber without changing the length of the lever or the position of the shock (load) on the lever. With a double control arm front end, the lever is stopped at the ball joints. Anything beyond that leverages against the ball joints and spindle, not the shock.

This is again shown by the example above - stick a 10' pipe on the end of the spindle. At the end of the pipe (negating any flexing of the pipe) you will have no more wheel travel than you do at the spindle itself - thus no more leverage applied upon the shock. You will however, have much more leverage against the tie-rods and thus the handlebars. Starting to become clear yet?

You are thinking of the system in too simple of terms. You are correct in that the inner pivot point is the control arm mount but you are forgetting about the ball joints being the outer pivot point of the system. You are fogetting about the upper control arm's effect on the system. Think about it for a while and it will all make sense to you. Draw a picture if necessary. A single control arm setup would be as simple as you have layed you, but we are not talking about a single control arm setup.

I'd also like to know how someone with a minor in physics could possibly not understand that the farther you move the centerline of the tire from the line that runs thru the center of the ball joints (SAI - steering axis inclination) the more leverage the tire has upon the tie rods, which transfer their load directly to the rider. It's all very simple really. Let me know if I need to elaborate on this.