2015 Release... What's coming our way on the 17th?
- Thread starter retro-pro
- Start date
G
Probably true TT. I just remember my feelings when I was playing with the height of my outside peg on my flattrackers way back.
Did it once on a 670 mod by mistake too. Drilled the running boards so big they were a hazard lol. So my fix was a tube board set-up over top and and flatter to the back and I liked it.
Of course if the Pro gets any more "flickable" (we don't hear that too much any more lol) it may be too flickable eh.
Oh, we won if you haven't heard.
Did it once on a 670 mod by mistake too. Drilled the running boards so big they were a hazard lol. So my fix was a tube board set-up over top and and flatter to the back and I liked it.
Of course if the Pro gets any more "flickable" (we don't hear that too much any more lol) it may be too flickable eh.
Oh, we won if you haven't heard.
I think the cool thing about the pro is that in a way it is really stable but yet so easy to throw around. After riding a 14 cat and owning an xm they could afford to lose a little stability and gain even less drag in the snow. The biggest draw back on the xm is the drag from the body and running boards. I didn't notice issues with the cat. I think the cat could be a handful, in the trees, if you were really tired.
I just scaled more of the dimensions from the patents drawings and I sure hope they pull their head out of their azzes and roll the driveshaft back more before production. As it is drawn; with their 2" drop (center to center, Jack Shaft to Drive Shaft) the as drawn location for the Drive Shaft, they gain nothing to the front tunnel close off. The tight spot moves down to the bottom close off bolt but is still just as tight in the new spot. So if you want to run the 3" paddles on the new sled you are still relegated to the 7 tooth drivers.
Which tells me that the new track is likely not a 3" paddle.
Which tells me that the new track is likely not a 3" paddle.
A
UNLESS... Poo did something with the "close off"/cooler plate (PRO-RMK/RMK)... which would not have to be in a patent application.
Plus I doubt that the Patent drawing could be scaled off of.
.
Last edited:
A
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370557
Here's the info about the 3 in power claw track.
Here's the info about the 3 in power claw track.
Tracks
While I'm bored... I'll do some more guessing.
Lookng at the patent drawings again...The track is definitely interesting.
Speculation abounds.... Carbon fiber, big engines, Direct Injection... of a skinny track possibility ... with slide rails spaced closer together to drop the overall weight of the rear skid/track assy , 2.80 track lug height... with a "skinny sled" (cab/track/ski-stance) out there for upcoming years... with a narrow front end for boondocking.
Maybe this track is only 12"-13" wide???
A narrow track/tunnel/tank/drivetrain would weigh a lot less and give you the benefits of a flexed edge track but without all that width... HMM... Foot print wouldn't be as important as is now if the sled weighs a lot less. Hmmm. It would also be easier to straddle the seat like a mx bike.
A pressure cast a-arm set with racer type ball joints and CMX type spindle angles.
I guess that carbon fiber tunnel sides could be in the plans if they can keep the unit cost down and maintain the sleds durability, in the all important consumers hands, and able to take day to day hard-core backcountry use. All this while integrating it into an effective production line.
.
While I'm bored... I'll do some more guessing.
Lookng at the patent drawings again...The track is definitely interesting.
Speculation abounds.... Carbon fiber, big engines, Direct Injection... of a skinny track possibility ... with slide rails spaced closer together to drop the overall weight of the rear skid/track assy , 2.80 track lug height... with a "skinny sled" (cab/track/ski-stance) out there for upcoming years... with a narrow front end for boondocking.
Maybe this track is only 12"-13" wide???
A narrow track/tunnel/tank/drivetrain would weigh a lot less and give you the benefits of a flexed edge track but without all that width... HMM... Foot print wouldn't be as important as is now if the sled weighs a lot less. Hmmm. It would also be easier to straddle the seat like a mx bike.
A pressure cast a-arm set with racer type ball joints and CMX type spindle angles.
I guess that carbon fiber tunnel sides could be in the plans if they can keep the unit cost down and maintain the sleds durability, in the all important consumers hands, and able to take day to day hard-core backcountry use. All this while integrating it into an effective production line.
.
Last edited:
S
RUMORS.... and Speculation.
.
.
S
those timebersled snow bike seem to go anywhere they wanted in cooke city when i was there, think they are narrow tracked?
They also have way less weight and one less ski to push through the snow. They don't climb straight up hills like a sled though
Another video update from Project Axys. "Rider Centric Comfort"
http://www.polaris.com/en-us/snowmobiles/project-axys
http://www.polaris.com/en-us/snowmobiles/project-axys
Looks like nothing new for mountain sleds. Was hoping for some cool graphics atleast. Hmmmm to snowcheck or not to snowcheck?
R
It's a Flatlander Buggy.
BNG for all RMK's. Some shock and clutch updates.
BNG for all RMK's. Some shock and clutch updates.
Similar threads
