Coming soon! Alpha LiFT kit.
- Thread starter Barcode
- Start date
How much testing have you done on this? The offset, single shear upper shock mount looks interesting.
That outer rod end on the lower is in serious shear there too.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
That outer rod end on the lower is in serious shear there too.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
As with all our kits, we use the same lower rod ends. They are supposed to be the "weak" point. Personally we've only bent them not broken any. We've also been using the same upper shock mount design for years now. Its just set up slightly different, to our other kits.
Ski pressure is no different then to any other front raised sled.
Ski pressure is no different then to any other front raised sled.
X
Do you know what the ski pressure is? It does not sound like you do. You can get it using a set of race car scales. Then you can report an actual number or, better yet, a percentage increase in ski pressure from stock.
I think that info would be somewhat hard to deliver due to the rear suspension setups will also effect ski pressure so a lot of it is dependent on total set up. I haven’t seen any published statements from BDX or ICEAGE on percentage or amount of ski pressures change on their front end lifts or have I missed that one?
Same question. The OEM cat front end is stout (asside from the spindles) this seems like it adds quite a few new introduced weak points so just wanting to better understand it. I've run numerous a-arm kits using rod end bottoms and bent/broken them with much less stub out then that, it is a bit concerning.
On the lower ball joint into the spindle is there a little tapered cone in there or just sandwiched over the taper?
Overall weight of kit vs stock?
How does one switch from 2-3 inches of lift?
X
If you wanna know what the ski pressure is, you have to measure it. Scaling it is the way to do that. From an engineering perspective, ski pressure is ski pressure regardless of whether it comes from changing the bridging distance or distribution between two points or increasing the point load via spring rate or ride height.
Last edited:
We are constantly testing our kits and trying different set ups. This one particularly stood out to us. Same as our first +5 design did. Everything breaks if you hit It hard enough. But we've had great success with the lower tie rod ends, they are quite strong. Since we've been selling kits, we've only had to send out 3 or 4 replacements. Ive not put put a complete kit on the sale yet. But should be around the stock weight. The kit was not designed for weight savings but for its improvements to the ride.
As for the adjustability of lift. We use a multi hole lower mount that can be moved. And yes there's a tapered cone sitting in the spindle.
As for ski pressure, that also comes down to each individual set up. How much psi/pre load you want on your shocks etc.
As for the adjustability of lift. We use a multi hole lower mount that can be moved. And yes there's a tapered cone sitting in the spindle.
As for ski pressure, that also comes down to each individual set up. How much psi/pre load you want on your shocks etc.
If your not quite catching my drift, it’s that you can manipulate the ski pressure with the rest of the set up with or without this kit, and maybe depending the on mounting location the percentage isn’t linear. So you can imagine why a company may not want to leave themselves exposed to unnecessary scrutiny. Yes it would be nice to see numbers, it helps us justify the bang for the buck we spend on our addiction we call sledding lol
I would like to compare it to my ice age kit elevate kit side by side on the snow to see what difference the offset forward does. Always good to see aftermarket companies like Barcode spending the time to build products that take an already capable sled and make it even better.
Forgot to ask what are you doing with the skid position are you lowering it down if so how you doing that?
X
I am fully aware of what you implied. That is exactly what I said in my response. Your shifting the load distribution between 2 points, which is referred to as bridging, by manipulating the shock spring rates. That is very easy to differentiate in testing. Changing the mounting location changes bridging, which can be described as well.
Simply hold constant the suspension settings pre and post the chassis change and scale it. Then change the bridging distance and rescale it. Or, target the same weight distribution pre and post the chassis change and describe the changes required to get the sled back to the target control values. These changes can be described in terms of percent changes in spring, valving rates, and bridging distance. This is very simple. To say it cannot be reliably done is not true. Anyone who has done a lab test can accomplish this task.
Last edited:
I think those lower A-arm rod ends Wouldn’t last an aggressive tree rider more than 2 or 3 rides. I’ve used other arms with the same looking ends. The slightest bump on a stout tree and your ski is dragging. You have to nail something really hard to damage a stock cat lower arm and even when you do it only slightly bends it. Put some decent ball joints on it I might buy a set.
I bend 1-2 lower a-arms a year (trees). I bought z-bro’s a-arms last year and have piled into 2 big trees that would have bent a stock one for sure and the arms are still mint. Perhaps these arms accept hits better then stock as well, even if it’s shearing ball joints. I’d rather carry a couple of those vs taco an a-arm.
Everyone always says that, but yet we never see anyone break their bulkhead with aftermarket a-arms (with the exception of Ski-Doos it seems).
I hit a buried stump pretty good with my alternative impact arms on my old pro, hard enough that I kissed the front bumper. Absolutely zero damage anywhere on the sled, barely even scraped the powder coating on the arm.
