I may have missed someone else's post but grip and rip has brace kits ready to ship.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Brace kits
- Thread starter rmk all the way
- Start date
Talk about beating a dead horse about the S and E module. All you internet engineers should ably at BRP. We get it the cast bulk head is weak. This thread was started to show what someone has for a solution to help get you through the winter...So go ride...quit complaining and have fun with this amazing beast of a machine!
S
salmonbum
Well-known member
I"m not an internet engineer but I am an Automotive Engineer. One of my projects is bigger than all of BRP products combined. But you do what you want.
Yep. A lot of people are enjoying this beast right up till the s mod exploded.
I've looked at the s mod and I know what a Polaris bulkhead looks like and it is almost embarrassing how flimsy the s mod is in comparison. It don't even look like they tried to make it tough. Super thin, square corners with no gussets or reinforcement, and probably the crapiest casting job I've ever seen. Super porous casting. I really doubt the brace kit will do much except transfer the cracks and breaks an inch or two further into the s mod.
Last edited:
If the casting is as weak as everyone is claiming it is, I don't see how Doo can "recall" and warranty new modules for everyone. It would break them. I see them performing the following steps.
First and foremost, they need to do a metallurgical analysis of the production model casting to determine the near exact material properties. I am sure they are already in the process of doing this in light of recent failures. They have to determine why this is happening.
Secondly, perform FEA with the above said material properties and compare with the original analysis. This should indicate that their is indeed a weak point in the areas that are failing.
Thirdly, determine if additional bolt on bracing either externally or internally (is their clearance inside of the module to do so??) is possibly to distribute an impact load more evenly over the module to prevent cracking from occurring and perform FEA with the additional bracing.
This would be my guess as to how BRP is approaching the situation as of now. I am not sure if any of the above companies that are producing "fix it" kits are going to this extreme, but would be interesting to hear how they derived a solution.
However, their is always the possibility, that BRP determines a cause of failure, and addresses it in next year's production sleds and chalks up the failures people are seeing now to "first model year" sleds.
This would actually be a VERY interesting project to be working on to determine cause of failure. I'll be curious to hear what BRP comes up with.
S
salmonbum
Well-known member
I passed on snow checking a gen 4, so I don't personally own one to investigate. I m gonna try to get my hands on one and see what's up. Our company has ties to a foundry, so I can ask more questions when I have bulkhead in my hand.
What I can tell you is when you make the weak area stronger you create a new weak point. Bracing will only one of 2 things: crack bulkhead in different area or transfer energy to e module. Bracing will not make a arm weaker.
S
salmonbum
Well-known member
I can guarantee BRP did FEA yrs ago, which is the problem. The program will never truly be able to replicate hitting a tree. I see it every day. OEM s come to me with reports from their FEA analysis and I don't even need to look at it and I can tell their design will fail. On top of that, ther FEA is only as good has the guy running it.
Another thing that ppl need to understand is proto sleds are differect than production sleds, even if every part number on sled is same. Proto parts built in small batches will be hand tweaked by the supplier to get the parts quickly. Once they get the green light for production then the hand built parts are replaced with mass produced parts usually being half *** checked once and hr. The tolerance will be more forgiving. Then the sled will be on a production line with deadlines, so the operators will rush to meet the hourly build schedule whereas, again proto are built by hand at a much slower pace.
R
Redneck16
Member
My s and e module(s) are being replaced. Would you want my damaged pieces? (I'm sure every ski doo dealership will have a few laying around...) It's an awesome sled so it would be great to have someone to look at it for the sake of making improvements.
I will say I straight up hit a rock going fast enough to damage any make or model. This wasn't ski doo's fault. But it would give you something to look at.
I will say I straight up hit a rock going fast enough to damage any make or model. This wasn't ski doo's fault. But it would give you something to look at.
S
salmonbum
Well-known member
Yes that would be cool. Where u at in colorado? I'm on the plane now leaving Detroit heading to steamboat.
I am sure they did FEA to begin. I agree with you. I also agree with you that the analysis is as only as good as the guy running it. If they are using the SolidWorks FEA software to analyze, then the ability to simulate a rock impact is not there. However, using Nastran/Patran you can make your mesh as big as you like and come very very close to simulating an impact as described.
If OEM's are coming to you with a design that is easily distinguishable as a "failure" with the naked eye, they should be thinking about getting into a different career. No offense to them, but that's crazy.
I think this was brought up in a different thread about the differences between a proto type sled and production sled. A forum member assured everyone that there was no difference in the prototypes vs. production sleds. To add to your statement, 9 times out of 10, prototype construction utilizes entirely different methods than production line methods. This could be playing a large role in this case.
P
paulharris
Well-known member
replacing these under warranty would break them?? give me a break. this would cost pennies for them in the grand scheme of their business. Not replacing them under warranty will cost them a lot more in the future from lost business. I would not be surprised if manufacturers have insurance for this sort of thing. Look at the automotive manufacturers that recall hundreds of thousands of cars, and they still make it. this was a very small run of snowmobiles, i would not be surprised if it was under 10,000 units.
If you think for a second that the snow division of BRP is going to recall and replace thousands of these units you are crazy. When I say "break them" I am not inferring that BRP would go out of business. I am inferring that the snow division of BRP would LOSE a ton of money, which is not going to happen.
The cost of parts/labor to replace these modules at dealerships throughout the country would be through the roof. Dealerships would be getting "book time" for replacement of this part.
And an automotive manufacture contingency costs are far more than the snow division at BRP.
Let me ask you, if BRP does not warranty this, are you saying you won't buy from them again? According to those who own the 850, the sled is incredible, aside from the issue at hand. I would suspect that 90% of those folks will continue buying from Doo based on the other factors that make the sled what it is.
G
glmtnapex
Well-known member
I have over 200 deep-snow heavy-duty high altitude mountain miles on my 165X.
I've 'grazed' a log at about 20 miles that flipped the sled on its side and spit me into the snow, no damage. Lucky? Maybe.
Does my machine have a stronger, better cast bulkhead than some of the other sleds out there? Maybe.
But I like to deal with facts. And the facts that I have are, so far, my machine has been flawless in every single way. No blown belts, no recoil problems, no bulkhead problems, nothing. I'm not an engineer, but I dont feel that I need to be to have an opinion about this (my) machine. I do know that I'm better rider as soon as I throw a leg over the seat and pull the rope.
I'm sorry for those who are having trouble with their machines, whether it's their fault or Skidoo's. But I am clearly not one of them.
I've 'grazed' a log at about 20 miles that flipped the sled on its side and spit me into the snow, no damage. Lucky? Maybe.
Does my machine have a stronger, better cast bulkhead than some of the other sleds out there? Maybe.
But I like to deal with facts. And the facts that I have are, so far, my machine has been flawless in every single way. No blown belts, no recoil problems, no bulkhead problems, nothing. I'm not an engineer, but I dont feel that I need to be to have an opinion about this (my) machine. I do know that I'm better rider as soon as I throw a leg over the seat and pull the rope.
I'm sorry for those who are having trouble with their machines, whether it's their fault or Skidoo's. But I am clearly not one of them.
