Z Broz +3 forward A arms

[irondave86]

Great news! However, I feel it would be EXTREMELY hard to say that the handling of the 3" and 4" were identical. I feel it is impossible to measure by simple "seat of the pants" feel.

But, if the results ARE that similar then the Zbroz will be a "sum all" front end kit where it combines the pros of all the kits out there into one tough/proven kit.

I plan on buying a kit at the intermountain snow show this weekend. Were they offering any promotional prices during the snow show??

They were offering a promotional price!

Only time will tell if Z broz is the "cats meow". For me, Skinz using the stock spindle is a deal breaker. But i think either the Z Broz or Skinz setup would be a HUGE improvement over stock.

 

[M5-]

I gotta ask. What exactly is everybody trying to accomplish here. Personally I don't see it, sure you might improve the side hilling a bit but why do you want to increase your wheelbase and turning radius, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Personally I love the tipiness of the stock geometry thats what makes the Nytro turn on a dime, by making it longer whats the benefit. I could care less how it handles on the trail, climbing the skis aren't on the snow anyways so no help there. I really don't have any issues sidehilling the Nytro so why would you want to make it harder to pull over or dial a nut. Sorry maybe I'm an idiot here and will be proven wrong I guess that remains to be seen and it wouldn't be the first time but if I'm proven wrong it'll be on someone elses dime. If I was going this route, which currently I'm not, I'd go with Zbroz their stuff is really nice.JMO

M5

 

[TRUEBLUEMAX]

I think the video that Skinz made about this perfectly illustrates what I am seeking in a new front end. Something that is more balanced and predictable. Something that handles bumps better on sidehills. Something that doesn't always wash the back end every time I try to do a downhill descent on my side.

I think if you are not a super aggressive tree rider than it is not worth it. I would agree that the Nytro handles well enough this is not necessary.

 

[justinkredible56]

I gotta ask. What exactly is everybody trying to accomplish here. Personally I don't see it, sure you might improve the side hilling a bit but why do you want to increase your wheelbase and turning radius, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Personally I love the tipiness of the stock geometry thats what makes the Nytro turn on a dime, by making it longer whats the benefit. I could care less how it handles on the trail, climbing the skis aren't on the snow anyways so no help there. I really don't have any issues sidehilling the Nytro so why would you want to make it harder to pull over or dial a nut. Sorry maybe I'm an idiot here and will be proven wrong I guess that remains to be seen and it wouldn't be the first time but if I'm proven wrong it'll be on someone elses dime. If I was going this route, which currently I'm not, I'd go with Zbroz their stuff is really nice.JMO

M5

I'm with you, I do love how the Nytro handles. I find the side to side "tippyness" a pro not a con. I've never had an issue sidehilling but I have noticed the "bucking" every once in a while and have just adapted to it. I'm fairly strong so I just throw it back into the angle I want it to be. However, I'm in the market for a new front end because mine is donezo! I wanted Zbroz before this and to find out that they have decided that moving the ski mounting position 3" forward improves handling is something I want to witness first hand and give feedback on.

The main reason I want my skis 3" forward:

The Nytro's weight is VERY centralized. Most of the weight of the sled is directly under the steering column. Couple this with almost perpendicular angle of travel of the A-Arms and you get great side to side action but in a descent or when jumping you get the nose dive feeling. My sled flies great in the air but when you land in powder it's another ball game. All of that centralized weight comes down in the same small window and causes the nose to dive. What I'm hoping happens with the new geometry changes, the weight will be dispersed on the snow more evenly, creating less dive when jumping down hill/off cornices. I think the trade off will be that you can't carve as tight of a circle in the snow but I have decided that it will be worth it. Previous attempts at improving this were wider skis (Simmons Gen 2) and Float Plates. I believe they are bandaids to the real issue. I would think that this issue would be amplified with the addition of a lightweight rear suspension since it would effectively offset the weight even more.

Same with sidehilling, if you have most of your weight towards the front of the sled (wrong foot forward all the way towards the front of the running board) it goes back to the same principal. Your front ski will have most of the weight and will either plant or wash out. If we can get the ski further forward it will cause the weight to be dispersed more evenly allowing for the sled to maintain a steep sidehill more efficiently.

Also notice that all manufacturers have done this from the factory except Yamaha. Although the XP's have less than the previous 03-07 revs. Like you and I we have no problem sidehilling our Nytros just as the XP fans have no issues sidehilling them. However the common consensus among ALL snowmobilers (obviously generalized), regardless of loyalty, is that sidehilling the Pro and M series sleds seem to be easier. If you look at the design they are the ones that have their skis furthest forward. Throttle Cable has also informed us that Yamaha is in the process of following suit and may release a factory version of moving the ski mounting position forward and apparently plan on doing it through A-Arms and a new sub frame.

Just some thoughts, all of this text are just ideas running through my head so please no one take this as fact! Only real world testing will verify any results, but it sure does look like it will work on paper!

-Justin

 

[M5-]

Good post. I agree with you on the centralized mass issue. I run a rear mount turbo specifically for the fact that it moves some of the weight to the back, as well I pack a 2 jerrys on my rack. To me the worst thing a guy could do to a Nytro is add a supercharger and a trail tank. All that extra weight on the front is just going to make things worse and the sled will handle awful. I don't jump so I can't comment on landing the Nytro but I get what you are saying. Nytro aside to me any sled that has the weight spread out over its length will handle better. It wasn't till I put a Rev tank on my Rx1 that I really understood how important it is to get some weight to the back of the sled and off the nose. Doo figured this out years ago with the original Rev design. In typical Yamaha tradition the delta box chassis had too much weight forward just like the Nytro does. By making the wheel base longer on the Nytro effectively you are moving the weight back but at what expense. I really believe that re-distributing the existing weight is the answer not making the sled longer. A seat tank combo like Impulse uses (only nicer) would be money better spent. JMO


M5

 

[TRUEBLUEMAX]

Justin the thing that you hit on that I think is very telling is the angle of the arms in relation to the sled. I have not seen the new cat in person but I know the Pro is not just that the arms are forward but the arms are angled forward where they bolt to the chassis. I think this allows them to be able to deal with bumps much better. I don't know if the angled arms on the Skinz kit will simulate this or not where the actual mounting is still the same.

I know from first hand experience people don't just say that a Pro sidehills easier. It does. Period. The interesting thing I think is that it actually seemed like it was harder to engage a sidehill with the pro but once there it was almost like riding on flat ground.

 

[justinkredible56]

Good post. I agree with you on the centralized mass issue. I run a rear mount turbo specifically for the fact that it moves some of the weight to the back, as well I pack a 2 jerrys on my rack. To me the worst thing a guy could do to a Nytro is add a supercharger and a trail tank. All that extra weight on the front is just going to make things worse and the sled will handle awful. I don't jump so I can't comment on landing the Nytro but I get what you are saying. Nytro aside to me any sled that has the weight spread out over its length will handle better. It wasn't till I put a Rev tank on my Rx1 that I really understood how important it is to get some weight to the back of the sled and off the nose. Doo figured this out years ago with the original Rev design. In typical Yamaha tradition the delta box chassis had too much weight forward just like the Nytro does. By making the wheel base longer on the Nytro effectively you are moving the weight back but at what expense. I really believe that re-distributing the existing weight is the answer not making the sled longer. A seat tank combo like Impulse uses (only nicer) would be money better spent. JMO


M5

I think this is ultimately what skinz/zbroz are after. I "think" they are changing the fulcrum point of the sled, but what are the drawbacks? The only way to find out for myself is to get a kit and try it out. Where I'm in the market already I guess I'll be the guinea pig

I'm glad other people are looking at these kits and asking questions also. It's easy to buy into all of the hype that they have caused, but more beneficial to realize what they are trying to accomplish.

 

[justinkredible56]

Justin the thing that you hit on that I think is very telling is the angle of the arms in relation to the sled. I have not seen the new cat in person but I know the Pro is not just that the arms are forward but the arms are angled forward where they bolt to the chassis. I think this allows them to be able to deal with bumps much better. I don't know if the angled arms on the Skinz kit will simulate this or not where the actual mounting is still the same.

I know from first hand experience people don't just say that a Pro sidehills easier. It does. Period. The interesting thing I think is that it actually seemed like it was harder to engage a sidehill with the pro but once there it was almost like riding on flat ground.

I had the same thought. I think that is why NM on here was contemplating designing a new subframe that would use some of the stock parts but change the mounting angle of the A-Arms on the subframe. Also from what Throttle Cable has told us,(or hinted towards) that's the approach that Yamaha is taking as well. Arctic Cat seems to have gone to an extreme on this concept, maybe it will be the ticket! After all, they are the ones that pioneered the A-Arm design.

 

[M5-]

I know from first hand experience people don't just say that a Pro sidehills easier. It does. Period. The interesting thing I think is that it actually seemed like it was harder to engage a sidehill with the pro but once there it was almost like riding on flat ground.

I don't doubt that it does sidehill better. When ever I think of suspension mods I always think in terms of extremes. So for instance if you moved the ski forward 12" instead of just 4" how would it sidehill? Well IMO it would probably side hill like crazy because the ski would generate lots of leverage on the sled to basically lift it up the hill but I think the counter steering effort would be huge all though you would likely need less. That said the question is why would you need that change? Well because there is too much weight up front for the ski to easily lift the sled up the sidehill at least thats basically what this mod is attempting to address. On the downside how would the 12" forward sled handle in all other situations. Probably the $hits I'm thinkin. So all that said is moving the ski forward 4" a good idea just to improve sidehilling only? The twitchtyness on the trail is also the result of too little caster in the spindle which is easily corrected, Ive built a front end that increased caster and it works. Just some more food for thought.

M5

 

[justinkredible56]

I don't doubt that it does sidehill better. When ever I think of suspension mods I always think in terms of extremes. So for instance if you moved the ski forward 12" instead of just 4" how would it sidehill? Well IMO it would probably side hill like crazy because the ski would generate lots of leverage on the sled to basically lift it up the hill but I think the counter steering effort would be huge all though you would likely need less. That said the question is why would you need that change? Well because there is too much weight up front for the ski to easily lift the sled up the sidehill at least thats basically what this mod is attempting to address. On the downside how would the 12" forward sled handle in all other situations. Probably the $hits I'm thinkin. So all that said is moving the ski forward 4" a good idea just to improve sidehilling only? The twitchtyness on the trail is also the result of too little caster in the spindle which is easily corrected, Ive built a front end that increased caster and it works. Just some more food for thought.

M5

Cool way too look at it. I like that we can have an intelligent conversation and bounce ideas of each other.

So I have to ask rather than 12" forward what if it was directly underneath the weight? Kind of like the Nytro is right now. Skis only offer so much flotation so your nose would dive and it would be kind of like a submarine in powder (Kind of like the Nytro is now haha). Increasing the footprint of the ski (enter the Gen 2) and you can bandaid the issue.

I agree with you that moving the skis too far forward will have negative effects but on the opposite end of the scale having them to far in is also a negative. We need a happy medium. That medium probably depends on weight distribution of the chassis. I think Zbroz tried to figure out where that was, if the comment that they had 4", 3", and 1" forward setups out on the snow for testing, is true.

As for castor angle I believe the Zbroz kit increases the castor by quite a bit so it may have that issue eliminated as well.

What do you think?

 

[TRUEBLUEMAX]

Isn't it amazing how much bench racing heats up when it is almost time to get to it. This conversation would probably never have happened in July. Fun to talk about it, hard to wait and see what will happen.

 

[ruffryder]

They were offering a promotional price!

what was the promotional price? not going to be able to afford a front end till next year but would like to know what they were going for.

 

[irondave86]

what was the promotional price? not going to be able to afford a front end till next year but would like to know what they were going for.

I think it was 10% off. so $840ish.

 

[APEX320]

Just ordered a set for my T Nytro we will see how they fit/work soon!!

 

[apex jeff]

This geometry is why the 2010mtx handles better than 08-09. 2010 nytro mtx used xtx spindles with wider control arms and lower arm ball joint way forward + no sway bar. skinz and zbroz picked up on this and took it one step further.




Jeff

 

[culvert]

So I'm picking up a 2011 Nytro. Does this mean it will have a forward frontend?
And when parts wear out, then worry about getting an AM frontend?

 

[apex jeff]

So I'm picking up a 2011 Nytro. Does this mean it will have a forward frontend?
And when parts wear out, then worry about getting an AM frontend?

The 2011 is more forward than 08-09,zbroz and skinz even more. You're paying for those stock arms,might as well use them?

 

[MRFUSION]

I just installed a plus 3 front end today and of course no instructions, but can someone shed some light on the upper shock mounting. I have the Exit XO front shocks and when all bolted up they seem like they want to be ahead of the upper mount. I could put them in the top mount but some pushing action required to make it line up. Is this normal? Thanx for any help. Shad

 

[jrusher]

Yes this is why you have or need spherical bearings in the top of your shock mounts.. Just push it over abit an mount up.. Or Z-bros makes a spacer/bushing an use a longer bolt to mount in front of normal mounting position on subframe..

 

[Tarzannr1]

Good post. I agree with you on the centralized mass issue. I run a rear mount turbo specifically for the fact that it moves some of the weight to the back, as well I pack a 2 jerrys on my rack. To me the worst thing a guy could do to a Nytro is add a supercharger and a trail tank. All that extra weight on the front is just going to make things worse and the sled will handle awful. I don't jump so I can't comment on landing the Nytro but I get what you are saying. Nytro aside to me any sled that has the weight spread out over its length will handle better. It wasn't till I put a Rev tank on my Rx1 that I really understood how important it is to get some weight to the back of the sled and off the nose. Doo figured this out years ago with the original Rev design. In typical Yamaha tradition the delta box chassis had too much weight forward just like the Nytro does. By making the wheel base longer on the Nytro effectively you are moving the weight back but at what expense. I really believe that re-distributing the existing weight is the answer not making the sled longer. A seat tank combo like Impulse uses (only nicer) would be money better spent. JMO


M5

Jepp, a new seat tank is what i also would by,is it only Impulse who sell a seat tank?
I bet money on if someone build a nice seat tank it would sell like peanutbutter, i would buy one