Idea: Axys spindles and rear tunnel brackets on a Pro?

sportsterdanne said:

From the patent.

"It should also be noted that the center line 670 of the driveshaft has not been lowered relative to a ground plane 676 but rather the remaining portion of the chassis has been raised relative to the ground plane 676. In the embodiment shown, the body panel 650 has been raised by approximately two inches relative to the ground plane 676. As shown, and in a first embodiment, the distance 677 between the body panel 650 and the ground plane 676 is 9.12 inches (231.647 mm). In the embodiment depicted in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 53</figref>, the corresponding distance 678 is 7.261 inches (184.432 mm). Thus, the end result of the design changes mentioned above has raised the ground clearance of the body panel 650 relative to the ground plane, and relative to the top surface of the snow.


Specifically, this has been accomplished by providing a revised bulkhead portion 608A (<figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIGS. 56 and 60</figref>), which is provided with a semi-circular portion 608B profiled to receive the drive mechanism 640. Bulkhead portion 608A defines a drive shaft mount portion for drive mechanism 640. In addition, and as mentioned above, the revised spindle 634 has been elongated which raises the location of the upper and lower control arms relative to the previous snowmobiles.


Also, the tunnel 606 is raised relative to the ground by moving the connection of the front control arm 616 relative to the tunnel 606. Namely, the connection point between the two is shown at 690 in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 55</figref>. As shown in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 59</figref>, the distance from the bottom of the chassis at 650 to the connection point 690 is shown as distance 686. In the first embodiment, the distance 686 is 3.34 inches (84.84 mm) and in the embodiment of <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 53</figref>, the analogous distance 674 is 5.34 inches (135.64 mm)."





Link to pic.


http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8733773B2/US08733773-20140527-D00000.png


Lots of pics and measurements in the Patent.


http://www.google.com/patents/US8733773




So the Driveshaft pretty much is in the same position relative to the ground and skid mounting Points but with higher running boards, and the the bulk is higher and the spindles below the lower a-arm is equally taller.
The Engine is lower in the chassie compared to the old pro becuse of different Engine mounts but probably higher of the ground due to the higher bulk.

Click to expand...

LoudHandle said:

So assuming the Patent verbiage and dimensions are accurate (which is suspect because they claimed 1 3/8" at the release instead of the 2" that is in the verbiage). Regardless of whether it is 1 3/8" or 2"; if the driveshaft is essentially in the same location and the chassis raised the 2", but they only stretched the C to C of the Chain Case / QD 1/4" the Jackshaft would indeed need to be lower in the AXYS chassis than in the PRO chassis.

So to make a PRO behave similar to the AXYS you need to lower the skis, driveshaft, and rear suspension relative to the chassis. The CofG will be slightly higher than the AXYS because we can't do much to lower the engine but on a budget we can do quite a bit to the old PRO to emulate the changes we see in the AXYS.

Click to expand...

LoudHandle said:

I'd be interested in knowing if the Jackshaft is in nearly the same location? Yes the Center to Center got stretched a 1/4" but did they drop the jackshaft when they lowered the engine in the chassis? It would be enlightening to actually get some hard dimensional comparisons between the PRO ride RMK and the AXYS RMK. I'd hedge my bet that the actual driveshaft is lower; as is the Jackshaft, engine, ski and rear suspension. Someone has to have both and not enough snow to ride (= bored?) maybe. Please

Click to expand...

LPIdaho said:

Despite what has been said above, from everything I have seen and measured, the motor is in exactly the same place as the PRO relative to the bottom of the bulkhead, and steering post; so it's not farther forward/back or any higher/lower relative to the bottom of the bulkhead. The driveshaft is essentially in the same spot as is the jackshaft relative to the ground.

Click to expand...

LoudHandle said:

So you're saying they only lowered the engine relative to the bulkhead in the Flat lander models? They sure made a big deal about the straps being part of the crankcase to allow the engine to be lower in the chassis. If they did not lower the engine in the RMK's that may be why the left bulkhead half is a different part number than the flat lander sleds? Or is there another reason?

As for our views I think we are saying the same thing just saying it differently. If we use the ground as the baseline like you did; the skis, track and rear suspension / driveshaft / jack shaft (+~1/4"), tunnel top height is the same as the PRO ride. The rest of the chassis is what got raised the 1 3/8". Correct?

Click to expand...

toyotarockhead22 said:

I'm looking to do this on my pro. Now that the axys has been out for awhile has anyone done this and had possitive results? Looking for updates

Click to expand...

B&M Fabrications said:

You could measure and build the inner plates for the drop brackets. They are just .080 aluminum with a flange folded out on each side with 2 - 6mm rivnuts. Then just order KMODs drop bracket covers for his skid which still has the stock skid hole in it.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

LoudHandle said:

So assuming the Patent verbiage and dimensions are accurate (which is suspect because they claimed 1 3/8" at the release instead of the 2" that is in the verbiage). Regardless of whether it is 1 3/8" or 2"; if the driveshaft is essentially in the same location and the chassis raised the 2", but they only stretched the C to C of the Chain Case / QD 1/4" the Jackshaft would indeed need to be lower in the AXYS chassis than in the PRO chassis.

So to make a PRO behave similar to the AXYS you need to lower the skis, driveshaft, and rear suspension relative to the chassis. The CofG will be slightly higher than the AXYS because we can't do much to lower the engine but on a budget we can do quite a bit to the old PRO to emulate the changes we see in the AXYS.

Click to expand...