Seriously, the 137 track MH weighs 137lbs! Couldn't have planned that any better.
Thanks for everyone posting up a very informative thread.
Thanks for everyone posting up a very informative thread.
Yeti vs TS weight
- Thread starter madmax
- Start date
S
I would like to see a honest shoot out conducted this season.
J
What are the odds TS comes out with belt driven kits next year and sells a kit to make previous years belt driven.
R
The odds? Somewhere around 0%. TS played with the belt drive YEARS ago and found that the negatives outweighed the benefits. Yeti/CMX are going that route so we will see how they stack up for reliability this season. If a "swap" kit were to be made I would expect it to come from an aftermarket manufacturer like CMX.
If you only knew...Yes TS tried the belt drive but could not make it work. If they try with the 2016 they may have some success. Every unit prior to 2016 was so out of line that a belt would not work. Belts like to run in straight lines. If you look at the 2016 unit there is outside influence in the build. They are being forced to get their act together. Oh, what are the negatives of a belt drive?
R
I'm just relaying what I was told about the belt drive during it's time under development. That's why I said Yeti/CMX are doing it this season and we will see how it shakes out. If it shakes out I imagine we will start to see 3rd party kits created for the MH. I understand the benefits of less rotating mass and quicker power delivery and I'm not disputing that if done right the belt drive could be a good thing.... hence the "wait and see" approach I'm taking based on the information I've been given.
My original statement stands... I don't see TS coming out with a belt drive upgrade for their kits at this present time. There are a lot of things under development right now and I don't hear the belt drive being a top priority.
Huge benefit on the belt drive imo. Maybe not cost benefit but power to the ground benefits for sure. When u see how easy the Yeti spins u will feel it. Timbersled couldnt make it work because their kits have/had way to much flex in their side plates. Another reason they went to dual row bearings. Flex is just hp leaving the system lol.
belt drives
when a sno bike specific engine is available, belt drive from engine to drive systems would be the real savings, belts like speed, chains like it slow, 20 years ago when road bike belt kits came out and Kawasaki built oem belt drive bikes, the smooth/ quiet/ less vibration was a plus, and vibration robs power and shortens chassis and engine life, creates rider fatigue.
with the current state of ATV delvopement and roadbike development, parts and pieces are there for a shaft drive direct from engine to drive axel and that would save the most energy and weight. Need to ditch the TWO chains or belts for one shaft drive.
when a sno bike specific engine is available, belt drive from engine to drive systems would be the real savings, belts like speed, chains like it slow, 20 years ago when road bike belt kits came out and Kawasaki built oem belt drive bikes, the smooth/ quiet/ less vibration was a plus, and vibration robs power and shortens chassis and engine life, creates rider fatigue.
with the current state of ATV delvopement and roadbike development, parts and pieces are there for a shaft drive direct from engine to drive axel and that would save the most energy and weight. Need to ditch the TWO chains or belts for one shaft drive.
The only fault a shaft drive has is the split second hesitation it has transferring the power to the ground , the infamous buck , other than that low maintenance and longevity plays in it's favor .
Kawasaki was really thinking when they used an old school wet brake in some of their drive shaft applications on the quads and side by sides , brakes last way longer than the dry applications not to mention they are protected from the elements .
Kawasaki was really thinking when they used an old school wet brake in some of their drive shaft applications on the quads and side by sides , brakes last way longer than the dry applications not to mention they are protected from the elements .
Carbon rails
So why if carbon is so good is the yeti using ice age rails now? I saw they said they broke some but why? Is the smaller travel of their skid bottoming out cause them to break? Don't freak just asking the reason!!
Secondly I ask about belt drives. I see in theory there benefit, and have bikes with both but ??? Is why then if so much better why does the world of high hp moto gp race bikes still use chains when they are so focused on power to the ground by efficiencies? Think about it and give me real answers !
So why if carbon is so good is the yeti using ice age rails now? I saw they said they broke some but why? Is the smaller travel of their skid bottoming out cause them to break? Don't freak just asking the reason!!
Secondly I ask about belt drives. I see in theory there benefit, and have bikes with both but ??? Is why then if so much better why does the world of high hp moto gp race bikes still use chains when they are so focused on power to the ground by efficiencies? Think about it and give me real answers !
Carbon fiber is a lot stronger than the credit it is given .
http://pstds.com/critical-link-driveshafts/
http://pstds.com/critical-link-driveshafts/
M
Carbon fiber is stiff which is good for compressive strength and Kevlar has high tensile strength. Most applications which are called carbon fiber frequently are actually made using a hybrid of the two materials. In combination the two create an exceptionally strong product. In equal thickness it is much stronger than aluminum which allows you to make a thinner piece which ultimately ends up being lighter. With aluminum and in particular plate aluminum, ie. TS side plates, you frequently end up adding thickness to achieve the desired strength. With carbon/Kevlar you engineer the strength in through design so thicker where it needs it and thinner where it doesn't hence more strength and less weight. For something like a rail it becomes cost prohibitive because it needs to be thick enough to take a hyfax which also makes it too expensive to mass produce, for that part aluminum makes sense, but make sure its 7000 series like Iceage uses. The Yeti tunnel is a perfect example of what carbon fibre excels at, it gets is strength through its design not based on its mass. There is no possible way the TS plate and frame design can match the torsional rigidity of the Yeti tunnel which is how they can get way running the belt drive and TS can't.
M5
M5
Last edited:
The Yeti rails were never really true carbon fibre. They were a glass nylon composition. Yeti does have some true carbon rails but they are very expensive and cost prohibitive i think. I believe they did have some breakage from some of the test units and i believe they chose Ice Age for production kits. As for shaft drive, i believe shaft drive would add some serious weight to a design that really requires less weight because of the power output of the bikes.
Now as for MotoGP bikes not being built with a belt instead of a chain i can only guess its because of the forces a million dollar GP bike has. A belt would have to be very wide over that span to be as strong as a chain. I believe a chain is much stronger width for width if you know what i mean.
That Yeti sure frees up HP with their belt and rigid design. Spins eeeasssyyyy !
Now as for MotoGP bikes not being built with a belt instead of a chain i can only guess its because of the forces a million dollar GP bike has. A belt would have to be very wide over that span to be as strong as a chain. I believe a chain is much stronger width for width if you know what i mean.
That Yeti sure frees up HP with their belt and rigid design. Spins eeeasssyyyy !
Last edited:
R
To be totally fair the race would have turned out the same if both of those kits were running a TS. Those two bikes are so different from each other it's not a fair comparison. Race motor vs. Enduro motor, close ratio trans vs. wide ratio trans, 11,600RPM vs. 9,600RPM. What size were the track kits cause that also could make a difference. If you are going to boast at least be full facts with the data.
I get what you are trying to do Argyll Motorsports, but at least put race bike against race bike and swap riders on video. I don't get why we've seen these Yeti videos and not one TRUE side by side test. I don't doubt Yeti has a great kit, but let's see this honestly.
2015 MX bikes with 2016 TS ST vs 2016 Yeti 120.
I'd have to agree. My guess is also the Timbersled is a 2" track version which will make up a lot the difference between the two bikes. Nice to see people getting comparisons out. Sure to be a lot more this winter since yeti and cmx in production.
Last edited:
R
My knickers aren't twisted... does Costco even sell knickers?
How long have we asked for a comparison video? Like 2 years now? Just seems lame that this is the first one we get.
