Long Travel

[Bansh88]

Safely hitting whoops at full throttle will require more than good suspension. you still have to know how to ride the bike well. Long Travel on a quad is not like long travel on a truck or buggy.

 

Hitting whoops fast, in my experience, takes a decent rear end. Shock and swingarm. Your front end should barely touch the whoops.

 

$1300 will barely get you a decent aftermarket front end.

[chris642]

I can afford expensive kits would rather not pay 1300 for one,

510348[/snapback]

 

Some good LT shocks could cost you 1300!!

[mxbanshee]

Hey guys (and girls),

I actually own and race a long travel front end for the Banshee and here is my review. First off, the kit is expensive and really only recommended for someone who wants to compete at a high level of racing. For the average dude that rides trails and the odd sand pit, your spending a lot of money for just playing around. I have the Janssen LT +3, +1 with Elka quad rate compression and rebound adjustments. I am also running an Elka dual rate rear shock with rebound and compression and a +4 axle making this quad a full (legal) 50" wide.

Here is the link to the kit, take note of the price: CLICK HERE Mine were slightly more because I upgraded to quad rate as opposed to triple and got rebound adjustability which is a must.

 

Here are some photos;

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to say that If you are planning to install this front end I would not do it unless you have a +4 axle. I will tell you how this thing handles with a stock swing arm. I am in the process of installing a -1 LSR swing arm and will post pics and a review as soon as I get some seat time. Why go with -1 as opposed to -2? Many reasons. First off look at the specs. The Banshee's stock wheelbase is 50.4 inches, remember that this is without the +1 forward aftermarket a-arms. So, with a -1 swing arm you maintain the 50.4 inch wheelbase, all that you've done is shifted the balance to the rear. Guess what the wheelbase is of the YFZ450? You guessed it, exactly 50.4 inches. So again, I wouldn't recommend going with the +1 forward a-arms without going with -1 swing arm. If you did you would just be exagerating the heavy front end of the Banshee. O.K. about the ride.

 

When they were first installed and I went out for a little jaunt my first impression was that it was harder to steer, which it was. Why? because I just widened my front end by 6 inches. At slow speeds the heavier steering is quite noticable. Imagine the differnce between steering a front end that is 50" wide (which mine is) to a front end that is say 24". 24'" is absurd but I used a real small number just to prove a point. I must also say here that I run a Denton 7 position steering stabilizer. Now, at speed, once dialed in, this Banshee is crazy stable. I mean I am able to charge very hard into the roughest stuff with amazing confidence. The front end turned this Banshee into a different machine. Remember too that this thing sits a measly 7 1/4" off the ground and has 5 degrees of camber, the stability and speed at which you can take corners is out of this world.

 

Bump steer! With my particular set up there is barely any. Let's clarify something here; bump steer occurs because the spindles are not in alignment with the ball joint at the end of the tie rod, and in line with the direction of travel (heim joint at a-arm). This might sound confussing but think of it this way; When your tire hits a bump, it was initially tavelling forward, now it wants to move up out the way of the bump. On a stock front end the a-arms can only move up along the line of the pre-set castor. On a stock banshee there is not enough castor to allow the tire to move along it's intended path which creates binding, this happens because the tire has to go up but wants to go up AND back. So, to reduce bump steer or eliminate it completly find a casor adjustment that is in line with the travel of the spindle and a-arm. Mine is 4.5 degrees. If you look at the first picture you can see that the tie rod is a t the same angle as the a-arms, the picture dosn't show the angle to be the same because it is not taken from level, but you get the idea. This is very favorable for minimizing bump steer. Now look at the agle of both the a-arm and tie rod on a stocker, see what I mean. The a-arms are specifically designed to have these components in line. I have no idea what all the talk is about, truely. A LT set-up will not increase bump steer or exagerate it, it's only more travle. Bump steer is the direction of this travel, which Janssen has taken into consideration and modified when building there arms. On the contrary, you have infinite adjustments to eliminate it or tune it out, compensating for your fram mounts. This set up absorbs all hits from nice even whoops to very rough eneven tracks and large landings all with very limited feedback in the bars. There will always be problems with arm pump with a Banshee because of the uneven power delivery of the 2 stoke powerplant. And yes there will be more bump steer than a YFZ, but has nothing to do with LT and everything to do with the frame. As you can see in the last picture I installed a LSR +2 +1 anti vibe steering stem and Flexx bars along with quality Spider grips to help minimize the strain on the arms when pushing this thing to it's limits.

 

There is one negative to my set-up without a -1 swing arm. This problem is a combination of things. The problem is that I would get light steering in tight corners, the proper term for this is "squatting". What I mean is that on 180 degree turns on a MX track I would have to fight to get front tire traction by letting of the throttle (BAD). And yes I know how to corner. I use front brakes to compress the front end and get maximum front tire traction comming into the corner then transfer my wheight to the rear upon initiation of the turn to gain traction and accelerate hard comming out. The light steering is due to the following conditions. I am a 200 pound rider, the Banshee's rear end geometry is condusive to heavy sag, and the +1 forward a-arms stretch the front end out to a location that is difficult to put weight onto the front tires. I made numerous changes to the front end including running zero toe in, light first spring positioning, and a lower front end ride height all to no avail. It was improved but still not to my liking. The -1 swing arm will cure this in many ways. First off it will make the rear end act a little stiffer and reduce the amout of sag because of it's position. To say all this in an easier way would be to say that it will minimize the "squatting". It will also bring the axle in closer under my weight. You may say, this will agravate the problem, but actually it will help it, let me explain. A shock is able to handle a weight that is distributed straight down on it better than on the is applied when it is on an angle. It's not that the shock is better stright up and down, it is that the wheight of the quad and rider is distributed to it with less force.

 

I sure am writing lots, I just love talking about suspension set-up. Back to the LT set up. Is it a true LT? Yes. Do you gain as much travel as a YFZ LT set-up? No way. Why? Because of the front end geometry. What I mean by this is that the mounts for the a-arms at the frame are set further apart than say a YFZ or 250R. My set up runs a full 19 inche shock like the YFZ LT but provides less travel becuse of the position of the frame mounts. People tend to confuse shock length with wheel travel. So in a way, and I think this is where there is lots of negatives written about the LT for the Banshee, you are not getting as much bang for your buck with a LT set-up for the Banshee. Now, this is of course "with respect to" other quads. If a guy was to spend 2 grand on a LT for a Banshee and the guy spent 2 grand for a LT on a YFZ, the guy with the YFZ bought himself an inch or two more that the guy with the Banshee. But, the Banshee was still increased to a full 10+ inches. Now, not to offend anyone here, remebering that I race a LT front end, for someone to say that an LT set-up on a Banshee is useless or a waste of money is highly mistaken. To me it is all about taking a machine and making it the best machine you are capable of. Whould I benifit from a Laeger chassis? You bet. Can I afford or want to go that route? No way. With this Janssen front end I beleive that I have made my quad handle to the upper limit of its capabilities, the only thing that needs work now is my physical conditioning and more practice.

 

Any comments or questions are appreciated. I don't claim to know everything about this and I am always trying to learn more. The more I can learn, the more I know, and the better I will be!

Edited May 9, 2006 by mxbanshee

[txblueshee]

Hey guy,

I actually own a long travel front end for the Banshee and here is my review. First off, the kit is expensive and really only recommended for someone who wants to compete at a high level of racing. For the average dude that rides trails and the odd sand pit, your spending a lot of money. I have the Janssen LT +3, +1 with Elka quad rate compression and rebound adjustments.

Here is the link to the kit, take note of the price: CLICK HERE

 

Here are some photos

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to say that If you are planning to install this front end I would not do it unless you have a +4 axle. I will tell you how this thing handles with a stock swing arm. I am in the process of installing a -1 LSR swing arm and will post pics and a review as soon as I get some seat time. Why go with -1 as opposed to -2? Many reasons. First off look at the specs. The Banshee's stock wheelbase is 50.4 inches, remember that this is without the +1 forward aftermarket a-arms. So, with a -1 swing arm you maintain the 50.4 inch wheelbase, all that you've done is shifted the balance to the rear. Guess what the wheelbase is of the YFZ450? You guessed it, exactly 50.4 inches. So again, I wouldn't recommend going with the +1 forward a-arms without going with -1 swing arm. If you did you would just be exagerating the heavy front end of the Banshee. O.K. about the ride.

When they were first installed and I went out for a little jaunt my first impression was that it was harder to steer, which it was. Why? because I just widened my front end by 6 inches. At slow speeds the heavier steering is quite noticable. Imagine the differnce between steering a front end that is 50" wide (which mine is) to a front end that is say 24". 24'" is absurd but I used a real small number just to prove a point. I must also say here that I run a Denton 7 position steering stabilizer. Now, at speed, once dialed in, is crazy stable. I mean I am able to charge very hard into the roughest stuff with amazing confidence. The front end turned this Banshee into a different machine.

Bump steer! With my particular set up there is NONE. I have no idea what all the talk is about, truely. A LT set-up will not increase bump steer or exagerate it. This set up absorbs all hits from even whoops to very rough tracks and large landings all with very limited feedback in the bars. There will always be problems with arm pump with a Banshee because of the uneven power delivery of the 2 stoke engine. And yes there will be more bump steer than a YFZ, but has nothing to do with LT and everything to do with the frame. As you can see in the last picture that I installed a LSR +2 +1 anti vibe steering stem and Flexx bars along with quality Spider grips to help minimize the strain on the arms when pushing this thing to it's limits.

There is one negative to my set-up without a -1 swing arm. This problem is a combination of things. The problem is that I would get light steering in tight corners, the proper term for this is "squatting". What I mean is that on 180 degree turns on a MX track I would have to fight to get front tire traction by letting of the throttle (BAD). And yes I know how to corner. I use front brakes to compress the front end and get maximum front tire traction comming into the corner then transfer my wheight to rear upon initiation of the turn and accelerate hard comming out. The light steering is due to the following conditions. I am a 200 pound rider, the Banshee's rear end geometry is condusive to heavy sag, and the +1 forward a-arms stretch the front end out to a location that is difficult to put weight onto the front tires. I made numerous changes to the front end including running zero toe in, light first spring positioning, and a lower front end ride height all to no avail. It was improved but still not to my liking. The -1 swing arm will cure this in many ways. First off it will make the rear end act a little stiffer and reduce the amout of sag because of it's position. To say all this in an easier way would be to say that it will minimize the "squatting". It will also bring the axle in closer under my weight. You may say, this will agravate the problem, but actually it will help it, let me explain. A shock is able to handle a weight that is distributed straight down on it better than on the is applied when it is on an angle. It's not that the shock is better stright up and down it is that the wheight of the quad and rider is distributed to it with less force.

I sure am writing lots, I just love talking about suspension set-up. Back to the LT set up. Is it a true LT? Yes. Do you gain as much travel as a YFZ LT set-up? No way. Why? Because of the front end geometry. What I mean by this is that the mounts for the a-arms at the frame are set further apart than say a YFZ or 250R. My set up runs a full 19 inche shock like the YFZ LT but provides less travel becuse of the frame mounts. People tend to confuse shock length with wheel travel. So in a way, and I think this is where there is lots written about the LT for the Banshee, you are not getting as much bang for your buck with a LT set-up for the Banshee. Now, this is of course "with respect to" other quads. If a guy was to spend 2 grand on a LT for a Banshee and the guy spent 2 grand for a LT on a YFZ, the guy with the YFZ bought himself an inch or two more that the guy with the Banshee. Now, not to offend anyone here, remebering that I race a LT front end, for someone to say that an LT st-up on a Banshee is useless of a waste of money is highly mistaken. To me it is all about taking a machine and making it the best machine you are capable of. Whould I benifit from a Laeger chassis? You bet. Can I afford or want to go that route? No way. With this Janssen front end I beleive that I have made my quad handle to the upper limit of its capabilities, the only thing that needs work now is my physical conditioning and more practice.

 

Any comments or questions are appreciated. I don't claim to know everything about this and I am always trying to learn more. The more I can learn, the more I know, and the better I will be!

513685[/snapback]

 

That post needs to be pinned at the top of this forum...

 

Mike

[Bansh88]

My buddy has a complete Lone Star frame with Roll Design "long travel" suspension.

He digs it. But he also realizes he could be riding just as fast with an average bolt on aftermarket set up.

Like I said. You can only ride as fast as you can handle. A friend I ride with used to have a (just pipe) Z400 that could lose me in the dunes anytime he wanted.

[JET 99]

that was a great description of a suspension under working conditions.

 

You put it in terms that most should understand. I know I did ! sorry if it sounded like a LT suspension was a majical thing I know that going over a set of whoops

you should keep the weight transfered to the rear and the rear shock carries most of the load, but with triple rates and a little more travel whether its up or down. LTs have a little more sag in the front which = a little more droop when you unload the front end which = a little more tire contact with the ground. These are things I have noticed since I put on over the winter.just my 2 pennies.

 

 

 

ONCE AGAIN THANKS FOR THE BITCHIN WRITE UP ON SUSPENSIONS

 

 

 

 

Jim

[mxbanshee]

Thanks for the props JET 99 and Bansh88 your totally right, no matter how good your susoension is it comes down to ridder skill. Better suspension simply separates the guys of equal skill and conditioning.