2019 AXYS-MTN REACT™ 37" WIDE SUSPENSION, IFS SHOCK LENGTHS

NoNonsense · Mar 9, 2018

JJ_0909 said:
I actually have a super similar story - Zbroz front end, standard eye to eye shocks! (except on an Axys) In my case I just ended up matching the ride height of an OEM by running more sag. In the end, I swapped the springs to a slightly heavier rate which let me run a whole bunch of sag but retain a stiffer overall rate. It worked. If I didn't make the change, yeah, heavy steering and more likely to trench. (this is why I wrote above for you to note the OEM bumper to ground number - its something you'll want to keep in mind)

In your case, there were a few small things you could have done to mitigate it. Its one reason of about a hundred I tell everyone to order scales off amazon to log their ski weight (specifically) when they get a setup they like...

No matter what, you can always go back to it! Static weight distribution is paramount to how a sled will ride.

Except for at full sag the a arm bound up on the spindles making it extra sketchy! No thanks.

Polaris has a team of full time engineers doing suspension design and calibration. I've bought, modified, and broken enough aftermarket stuff that I think I'll leave the properly functioning OEM components alone from now on.

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

I'd bet that some with nice aftermarket wide suspensions on their current AXYS will like them better than the REACT™ 37" and will swap out the whole setup.... like it's said above... personal preference.

To be honest... I really don't have fantasy's about riding super steep tree'd areas... I ride with some people that do... but I generally take the "B-Route"

.

JJ_0909 · Mar 9, 2018

NoNonsense said:
Except for at full sag the a arm bound up on the spindles making it extra sketchy! No thanks.

Polaris has a team of full time engineers doing suspension design and calibration. I think I'll leave it up to them for delivering the correct length shocks.

Axys did not bind on the spindles.

You are totally right btw - match OEM specs for most vanilla/predictable results!

Please, go read what I wrote. I did not say this is best. I'm trying to suggest to the masses opening your mind and playing with some of this is totally acceptable and if done correctly, can yield a sled the rides just fine, or even better depending on what you are looking for.

I totally forgot to mention, I did cut down some Assault shocks for my 155 Axys RMK. I LOVED that suspension. Ended up with less stroke by 1/2". Was sprung firmer. I was a better rider on that sled than any sled I've owned to date.

Currently trying a shorter FTS (barely) and longer stroke on my Gen4 for a variety of reasons. Again - just showing you can play with this stuff!

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

05rmksteve said:
Looks like they changed the spindles. The 19s look a little stronger will they fit on a 16,17 and 18.

They did change them... they are forged now.

No word on if they will fit yet however.

.

greasemonkey3406 · Mar 9, 2018

Any word on if the bottom a arms are stronger?

Spaarky · Mar 9, 2018

JJ_0909 said:
I actually have a super similar story - Zbroz front end, standard eye to eye shocks! (except on an Axys) In my case I just ended up matching the ride height of an OEM by running more sag. In the end, I swapped the springs to a slightly heavier rate which let me run a whole bunch of sag but retain a stiffer overall rate. It worked. If I didn't make the change, yeah, heavy steering and more likely to trench. (this is why I wrote above for you to note the OEM bumper to ground number - its something you'll want to keep in mind)

In your case, there were a few small things you could have done to mitigate it. Its one reason of about a hundred I tell everyone to order scales off amazon to log their ski weight (specifically) when they get a setup they like...

No matter what, you can always go back to it! Static weight distribution is paramount to how a sled will ride.

If you do what you are talking about you will NEVER get the weight distribution back to original and have the same handling/feel.

We live by the scales and measurements. What you are talking about doesn't work properly. Your are overlooking a bunch of factors. Good Luck!!!

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

Please, lets keep it civil and constructive.

.

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

...

aksledjunkie · Mar 9, 2018

MH, is it just the upper A-Arm that is the same as last year and the bottom and spindle are now forged or is it the entire getup?

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

Upper, lower, sway bar, shock/spring, tie-rod & spindle.

.

aksledjunkie · Mar 9, 2018

Wasn't aware that the sway bar was different material.
Thanks!!

JJ_0909 · Mar 9, 2018

Spaarky said:
If you do what you are talking about you will NEVER get the weight distribution back to original and have the same handling/feel.

We live by the scales and measurements. What you are talking about doesn't work properly. Your are overlooking a bunch of factors. Good Luck!!!

Lol.

I've learned to be weary of the "expert" who fails to articulate what they are saying objectively.

"a bunch of factors"...

Such as?

Explain how a longer eye to eye with more sag is somehow different on the scales than a shorter eye to eye with less sag? If I have 150 pounds per ski on the scales, this is objective. It does not care what the eye to eye is. It does not care what the stroke is.

Now I may reach the end of my travel more quickly. I may end up with an initial rate that is softer than I'd like. I may end up with a spring rate that is more aggressive than I want. These are all possible conclusions! But then again, with 150 pounds per ski, I may really like the setup...

Don't fear what you do not understand. Learn about it. Create a hypothesis and test it. Make an opinion based off these results (and others).

Saying "an engineer did it so it must be right" is an answer rooted in ideology. It is not rooted in critical thought and objective reason.

This doesn't make the engineer wrong. Not at all. But it also doesn't make his suggestion of eye to eye and stroke somehow mutually exclusive of any other setup.

Just look at what you guys do with clutching. Is it OEM spec? Nope. But it performs a task and does so in a way you guys tend to think is better than the polaris engineers figured out.

Does this make them wrong? Nope. But its cool you found something else that worked.

Suspension is similar. Understand what you are working with. Understand the other factors at play. Make your mind up from there. Don't be sheep.

I'm operating under the premise of taking quality of travel over quantity of travel. At least when everything is kept within a reasonable range.

Seabass152 · Mar 9, 2018

JJ_0909 said:
Lol.

I've learned to be weary of the "expert" who fails to articulate what they are saying objectively.

"a bunch of factors"...

Such as?

Explain how a longer eye to eye with more sag is somehow different on the scales than a shorter eye to eye with less sag? If I have 150 pounds per ski on the scales, this is objective. It does not care what the eye to eye is. It does not care what the stroke is.

Now I may reach the end of my travel more quickly. I may end up with an initial rate that is softer than I'd like. I may end up with a spring rate that is more aggressive than I want. These are all possible conclusions! But then again, with 150 pounds per ski, and I may really like the setup...

Don't fear what you do not understand. Learn about it. Create a hypothesis and test it. Make an opinion based off these results (and others).

Saying "an engineer did it so it must be right" is an answer rooted in ideology. It is not rooted in critical thought and objective reason.

This doesn't make the engineer wrong. Not at all. But it also doesn't make his suggestion of eye to eye and stroke somehow mutually exclusive of any other setup.

Just look at what you guys do with clutching. Is it OEM spec? Nope. But it performs a task and does so in a way you guys tend to think is better than the polaris engineers figured out.

Does this make them wrong? Nope. But its cool you found something else that worked.

Suspension is similar. Understand what you are working with. Understand the other factors at play. Make your mind up from there. Don't be sheep.

I'm operating under the premise of taking quality of travel over quantity of travel. At least when everything is kept within a reasonable range.

Winner!

summ8rmk · Mar 9, 2018

The 5/8" difference in length is no where near as critical as valving and spring rate!

Not even close, not even in the same discussion!

90% of riders won't even notice the difference from the shorter shock.

Neutral riding position is the only time there will be a noticable difference. (Sitting in the gararge or Driving down a smooth hiway). Add some preload to the front track shock and problem is solved.

The only issue from a longer shock would arise at full extension, tierods or other suspension part may rub. If not, ur good.

Alpha

......

TimG · Mar 9, 2018

Haven’t the a-arms been forged since ‘16?

mountainhorse · Mar 9, 2018

Haven’t the a-arms been forged since ‘16?

yes, but not the spindles.

.

kylant · Mar 10, 2018

so where can I send my "Keith Curtis" Fox RC2 shocks to have them shortened?
thanks

goridedoo · Mar 10, 2018

greasemonkey3406 said:
Any word on if the bottom a arms are stronger?

They are shorter... so yes they should be stronger regardless. Have not heard if they are different otherwise though.

Sheetmetalfab · Mar 10, 2018

kylant said:
so where can I send my "Keith Curtis" Fox RC2 shocks to have them shortened?
thanks

Gas shock repair in Idaho.

icr · Mar 10, 2018

Sheetmetalfab said:
Gas shock repair in Idaho.

I wouldn’t send them anywhere else.

2019 AXYS-MTN REACT™ 37" WIDE SUSPENSION, IFS SHOCK LENGTHS

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Most handsome

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads