Alternative Impact 36" forward a arm kit

alt · Feb 12, 2015

mk2g60 said:
So your milling the snap ring grooves in the eyelets so you can use spherical bearings for only $70 for both shocks?

That's correct. Only down fall I see there is the shipping. So far Andy @ gas shock repair in Idaho will be doing them unless a dealer selling my stuff already does in house shock mods. That includes the bearings. Andy is the man.

alt · Feb 12, 2015

bradburck said:
Dan do you have a rough price point? Just a ball park would do... LOVE the idea and damn does it look narrow in the front facing pic... should make this chassis even more nimble! Thanks!

That pic is with everything in the narrowest position. Putting it @ 35-1/8'' and will run up to 36.5''. At 36.5'' the skies are centered on the spindles.

madmax · Feb 12, 2015

Made some of my own 35" proclimb arms out of an old set of 40" arms a had sitting around. Wow, a very amazing difference over the 38's. Almost makes it a whole new sled.
New 35"

Stock 38"

Snopro_69 · Feb 12, 2015

You say 16.625" shock length. Are the raptors for 38" arms. I think 17.1" long going to work fine with your arms?

alt · Feb 12, 2015

Good question and I'm already getting a lot of guys asking. Because we tested with the 16.625" I cannot honestly answer that. My guess would be yes but that's only a guess. The rod ends on the uppers were nearly maxed out but only to the point of saying I "think" a 17" shock would be fine. Time will tell. Dudler plans on using his stock length as I'm sure do several others. My guess is about a 5/8" increase in ride height is all and that can be a good thing if a guy has or plans on other mods like a 3" track etc. even if the rod ends bind they can be modded to relieve them. Wish I had a more sure answer on that. Thanks!
Dan

Snopro_69 · Feb 12, 2015

Any pics from the side?? Looks like the tie rod is darn close to the shock in the pics. This might not work with coil spring shocks at all??

Vertical-Extreme · Feb 12, 2015

With the 36 inch A arms how much of an issue is the "fat body" on the proclimb going to be? I love the concept of the narrow front end and I'm pumped Alt impact is producing one , I'm just wondering if the panels will become more of an issue?? that and I would love to see a shorter spindle like the BDX ones...except that don't bend when you look at them funny

RACINSTATION · Feb 12, 2015

We will be testing with coil overs and in the 17" shock as well and will have results late next week if all goes well.

alt · Feb 13, 2015

Snopro_69 said:
Any pics from the side?? Looks like the tie rod is darn close to the shock in the pics. This might not work with coil spring shocks at all??

I didn't take really much for pics on this build. I guess so focused on the goal that part got neglected. They are close with the floats. Coil overs may require a bend in the tie rod. Not an issue at this point that can't be remedied.

Vertical-Extreme said:
With the 36 inch A arms how much of an issue is the "fat body" on the proclimb going to be? I love the concept of the narrow front end and I'm pumped Alt impact is producing one , I'm just wondering if the panels will become more of an issue?? that and I would love to see a shorter spindle like the BDX ones...except that don't bend when you look at them funny

no doubt the panels on this sled will be an obstacle and always will be until cat or someone changes it but I really didn't see it to be a lot more of a problem with the 36" kit than with the stock 38". Either way their too dang fat.

RACINSTATION said:
We will be testing with coil overs and in the 17" shock as well and will have results late next week if all goes well.

Eric should be finishing up a set for you and hopefully coming your way today. I'll let you know if they leave here today.

WhiskeyTee · Feb 13, 2015

With the modification to the shocks. Will that prohibit going back to stock when I sell the sled?

madmax · Feb 13, 2015

If you shorten the shock for a narrow front end it will make the front end sit lower with the stock arms. If you just have the spacer put in to shorten it can be taken out. If you have the shock shortened there is no going back. On the set of arms I built I moved the spindle forward like the Skinz front end and I didn't shorten my shocks. Worked out very well.

Chewy22 · Feb 13, 2015

madmax said:
If you shorten the shock for a narrow front end it will make the front end sit lower with the stock arms. If you just have the spacer put in to shorten it can be taken out. If you have the shock shortened there is no going back. On the set of arms I built I moved the spindle forward like the Skinz front end and I didn't shorten my shocks. Worked out very well.

It's unreal what a simple geometry change on the front end does for this chassis. Narrow the stance a bit and move the spindles forward and it's an entirely different sled.

No added issues with a narrower front end and the fat azz width of body/panels. I will never be a fan of body width and panel design on this chassis.

backcountryislife · Feb 13, 2015

I will say that on the doo with a 36" front... it's the same problem, and imo you just change technique a bit, you don't over-sidehill like we would on the M, or even the PC with a 40" setup, but you get used to it fast. I found myself making use of the panels more than I used to on the M on downhills anyhow... I can't see this being a big downside for anyone.

boondocker97 · Feb 13, 2015

It seems we are starting to hit the point on current mountain sled chassis from all the manufacturers where "rider forward" has diminishing returns without mods like this. Moving the rider forward puts the center of mass closer to the rider and makes it easier to control. The negative is that when you are initially tipping the sled over, you are closer to the wider part of the sled (a-arms) and it takes more effort initially to get it over. Moving the spindle forward and narrowing the stance then makes it easier to tip over. I'm guessing the next thing we will start noticing as the trend continues is that we are making the sled longer, which in turn will make direction changes tougher. Then I imagine the next "revolution" in mountain handling will come when a manufacturer figures out how to move the motor and drive train back and put it right under the rider and shortens the sled back up!

backcountryislife · Feb 13, 2015

boondocker97 said:
Then I imagine the next "revolution" in mountain handling will come when a manufacturer figures out how to move the motor and drive train back and put it right under the rider and shortens the sled back up!

Isn't that the same as moving the rider forward? Btw... I'm hoping after a few years of people driving around on 174's that we'll go back to needing some skill to ride a sled again

(I'm probably wrong on that though)

Vertical-Extreme · Feb 13, 2015

ugh if the snow wasn't horrible and the oil prices worse I would be phoning with my credit card today.... but it looks like will be a spring / summer mod for me, but hey! Ive been lurking a little bit in the yellow section, and this might keep me in the green for another year...lol

alt · Feb 13, 2015

madmax said:
If you shorten the shock for a narrow front end it will make the front end sit lower with the stock arms. If you just have the spacer put in to shorten it can be taken out. If you have the shock shortened there is no going back. On the set of arms I built I moved the spindle forward like the Skinz front end and I didn't shorten my shocks. Worked out very well.

By shortening I don't always mean cutting the shaft. Yes shims are a great thing if you want to go back stock. My mouth doesn't always receive messages from my brain. I'm not sure what you did on your shocks but from what I experienced it's impossible to move that shock forward more then 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch and the three quarters of an inch puts a good strain on the stem. Thanks for clarifying that for me! Dan

boondocker97 · Feb 13, 2015

backcountryislife said:
Isn't that the same as moving the rider forward? Btw... I'm hoping after a few years of people driving around on 174's that we'll go back to needing some skill to ride a sled again (I'm probably wrong on that though)

Yes and no. Moving the rider forward puts them in better control of the sled mass for how sleds are built now. However, the more you can centralize the mass of the sled in the first place, the easier it becomes to control it and also make the chassis smaller.

madmax · Feb 13, 2015

alt said:
By shortening I don't always mean cutting the shaft. Yes shims are a great thing if you want to go back stock. My mouth doesn't always receive messages from my brain. I'm not sure what you did on your shocks but from what I experienced it's impossible to move that shock forward more then 5/8 to 3/4 of an inch and the three quarters of an inch puts a good strain on the stem. Thanks for clarifying that for me! Dan

It does strain the upper mount. The plastic ball joint there does not pivot near what you would think it should. I thought I read in the viper post you moved the Alternstive arms forward over 2", is that correct?

alt · Feb 13, 2015

madmax said:
It does strain the upper mount. The plastic ball joint there does not pivot near what you would think it should. I thought I read in the viper post you moved the Alternstive arms forward over 2", is that correct?

2.625. We were going for 3" and did a set with both. I noticed no difference in the way each rode and did not like what it did to the shock.

Alternative Impact 36" forward a arm kit

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads