2014 Clutch sheave angle????

Really? Have you tried them?

i haven't tried anything but a 20, but my 20 worked great, felt snappier for sure. my buddy just put in 19/50 and said he is loving it too, way tree friendly and picked up some track speed on the hill


but back to sheave angles, im eager to hear if this has been changed at all too.

Get.Slicked said:

Really? Have you tried them?

Click to expand...

Been running them since Dec and they are awesome.

+1 on the 19/50

If you don't want to ruin your clutches by running them nuclear hot, this gearing is a big part of the fix. Gearing should have been 20/49 or 19/50 from the beginning and a lot less issues would have occurred. I geared my sled 20/49 before I had a mile on it. I never had hot clutches even when running hard. I only ran 083 belts, lost one in 850 miles of powder, mountain, pretty much to the bar running. :face-icon-small-hap

Latitude 62 said:

If you don't want to ruin your clutches by running them nuclear hot, this gearing is a big part of the fix. Gearing should have been 20/49 or 19/50 from the beginning and a lot less issues would have occurred. I geared my sled 20/49 before I had a mile on it. I never had hot clutches even when running hard. I only ran 083 belts, lost one in 850 miles of powder, mountain, pretty much to the bar running. :face-icon-small-hap

Click to expand...

My 13' is geared to 20/49 and i blew two belts in the first 210 miles. one 84 and one 83...

To those who say the gearing change is a "bandaid".(wyoboy).. Here is my question. When talking about gearing change to 20/49 or 19/50is it that Perhaps for the 7 outta 10, the common man the average man, it will work great?... Brings clutch temps down without having to spend $$$ on Team tied or on milling sheave angles or TTCL's. all of which are hundreds of $$$ and many say you need most of these fixes...so wyo, you are adamant that the gearing change is a farse and a bandaid b/c if properly clutched you would be able to pull + track speed...correct? (If not please correct me...gearing and clutching is not my specialty :face-icon-small-dis) so essentially if a guy didn't want to spend the time /and money to get a "fix" and/or get his clutches "dialed in", the gearing change would be the way to go, right? May leave a little in the table in a perfect world but for the less intuitive individual sexy prob wouldn't notice, or it will feel like a gain...is this correct?

samiams2 said:

To those who say the gearing change is a "bandaid".(wyoboy).. Here is my question. When talking about gearing change to 20/49 or 19/50is it that Perhaps for the 7 outta 10, the common man the average man, it will work great?... Brings clutch temps down without having to spend $$$ on Team tied or on milling sheave angles or TTCL's. all of which are hundreds of $$$ and many say you need most of these fixes...so wyo, you are adamant that the gearing change is a farse and a bandaid b/c if properly clutched you would be able to pull + track speed...correct? (If not please correct me...gearing and clutching is not my specialty :face-icon-small-dis) so essentially if a guy didn't want to spend the time /and money to get a "fix" and/or get his clutches "dialed in", the gearing change would be the way to go, right? May leave a little in the table in a perfect world but for the less intuitive individual sexy prob wouldn't notice, or it will feel like a gain...is this correct?

Click to expand...

You have a great question and here is my take. I have been running 19/50 with the Mountain Valley clutching springs since early December and I have zero complaints. Do I drag race my HCR, uh no, do I ride my HCR in the tree's and on the big hills, yes. Do I proclaim to be a super snowest forum knowledgeable superhero, no. I can tell you this though, I have been running an 083 since my clutching system revision in early december and have 750 miles on the 083 and it looks like a champ with many miles to go, oh and my belts dust has been reduced by at least 80%. Oh and to throw this in, I did not have my secondary re-surfaced, it is still in the stock form.

Sometimes the R&D folks get it right and this is a perfect example of Yep it works, oh and it works well.

19/50 is 2.63 ratio....right on! Whats your problem? 2010 M8 was 2.65 I never heard any bitching about that.

Anybody try this on their turbo? The turbos ratio is only 2.10

CatMan88 said:

My 13' is geared to 20/49 and i blew two belts in the first 210 miles. one 84 and one 83...

Click to expand...

Have cat put a new secondary on. They will. Dont let your dealer tell you any different, there is a problem with the bushing and they know it.

Catman88, your gearing is not the problem now. Next question I would ask is how well are you sealed up? Screens on every opening on the hood? Silicon sealer in all the bulkhead openings where the A arms mount etc? Silicon sealer in the shock towers? Silicon sealer in the two holes in the bulkhead forward of the Drive Cogs? Brake shield to keep disc from spraying melted snow on the driven? Is your alignment perfect? If you said yes to all of these, maybe your clutch is crap. Use the flashlight in the dark under the hood trick to get all your openings sealed up.:face-icon-small-coo

roger on the bushing, mine has never been an issue since new but changed the bushing anyway. my sled is a 2012 m8 cutler turbo with 1500km......never blown a belt and still going strong. anyway back to what friend asked up there.........2014 sheave angle, i too would like to know if they changed it.

There has been so much talk of sheave angles I just had to know.....so I took both my clutches and a team tied to the machine shop and asked them to take some measurements. Clutches were mounted in the lathe and sheave angles measured in several locations relative to horizontal using a calibrated digital angle finder capable of measuring to 0.0 degrees. Not saying this is the most accurate way but the head machinist was confident it was good to +-0.1 degrees. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now but they were all within 0.2 - 0.4 degrees on these particular clutches, not sure if there was a difference between fixed v. moveable sheaves. Is 0.2 degrees over the short distance from the top bottom of the belt with the squish factor of the rubber even noticeable?

The way sheave angels have been discussed in here by some people as being "way off" I was expecting to see variations of up to a degree or more. This was discussed some last year, but if the secondary sheave angles were "wrong" or different than the primary how does this explain why the side of the belt can appear to be not making full contact? Wouldn't the primary making full contact with the side of the belt leave a wear pattern that would make it very hard to tell if the secondary sheaves were only contacting the upper 2/3 of the belt? Seems like both clutches are cut at the same angles (or very close) and that if anything the belt is cut at a different angle than the sheaves....oh wait that idea so was so dec 2011!

Before I wonder about the 2014 secondary sheaves I would like some more data showing the 12-13 angles and why they are wrong. I would also like to know how the team compares because it seemed the same or very close to the stock clutch from our measurements. Snowrdr has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for mountain valley and he doesn't even have the secondary machining.....and according to wyoboy the machining of the secondary is by far the most important part of the clutch kit. So which is it? Or maybe these sleds just happened to have good non-binding clutches and lucked out on the alignmetn from the factory?

Maybe the stock clutches were not machined to spec...but after this much time in the bizz I find it hard to believe that Cat mis-matched the sheave angles...its not their first rodeo (maybe just the first one in China).

One thing no one has mentioned about gearing is that there is a certain point where lower gearing causes more vertical scrubbing of the belt and can cause more heat (especially on and off the throttle tree riding). Too high of gearing is hard on the belt but too low is not good either, performance aside.

Gearing, sheave angles, belts angles/lengths none of this is new to Cat and they made it work just fine in the past. There is one part of the drivetrain that is entirely new to cat starting in 2012 though.....

I also took off my primary and brought it in with the secondary to have the angles matched and the machine shop said they were near identical(2012 hcr).

Mseven said:

I also took off my primary and brought it in with the secondary to have the angles matched and the machine shop said they were near identical(2012 hcr).

Click to expand...

I seem to remember reading somewhere once that having identical sheave angles wasn't optimum. Anyone want to chime in on that?

The problem is not the sheave angles, or helix degree, or primary weight profiles, or even gearing (although the lower gearing works well). Balancing the clutches?? Never a bad idea but does it help with clutch heat??? Not so much...