Kurt's Polaris Gear Down Kit?
- Thread starter m1kflyingtiger
- Start date
But I assume that since you said " faster hole shoot and snappy throttle" it was slower still in the top end? That is gearing down quite abit. That can be good in "concrete" snow conditions but could be a sacrifice in lite powder in overall track speed? :crazy::typing::gossip::argue:
how much track speed are you guys wanting to see? if your wanting 60mph plus...put a turbo on....most N/A sleds are lucky to see over 50mph on steep and deep climbs anyway. so why not keep belt temps down and have instant throttle response. were riding mountain sleds after all not asphalt drag sleds. JMO i guess
P
Excellent info. Thanks for actually post actual temp differences between the two different setups. Sure wish we could find those numbers for the blowhole...
PV
And that is a good thing when using the Gates Polychain = lots of contact with the top pulley.
Same dealer.
Seeley is the original store...Missoula is the second store, but much bigger and more flashy.
I use both stores, but honestly, I've had better luck with my friends at the Seeley shop. And that's where I take my boat for anything.
Keith, were the two 2014 163s clutched the same? Only difference was gear-down kit?
These things are geared in theory to go about 86mph on flat ground on a groomed trail (with supposed 21/44 gearing). WHO sees that track speed in the steep and deep? Let's say you geared it down (to 20/45) so that they only go 80mph...there are going to be HUGE bonuses...cooler temps, longer belt life (BOTH belts) and better grunt on the bottom. Easier to get and hold optimum RPM.
I see the value in gearing down and getting away from the 2.09 gearing. I've always been a fan of the 2.23 or so gears.
I'd like to hop on a Pro that's geared at 2.41.
You know what they say about the two bulls up on the hill watching the cows down below. Gearing down is like the old bull...takes longer to get there, but sure gets the job done a lot better.
Download this...you can change the variables in the blue boxes to get optimum track speed.
http://www.snowest.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=221037&d=1387155266
Last edited:
And to add to that...let's say you used the 21/44 gears, went with 7t drivers in a 3" pitch. You are only losing 1 mph to end speed (78.7mph)
Last edited:
Stock gearing is 20/42... Not really sure what gear ration gets you 2.41 though
Always found about 2.25 to be a good ratio, IMHO I really liked the 19/42
Can't find any info at http://www.kurtspolaris.com/
I don't see a link to the Gear Down product. Help.
I don't see a link to the Gear Down product. Help.
I do agree about gearing it down and believe it helps. I just geared down my 12 to 2.25 with the TKI belt drive. Hope to try it Friday.
So I have posted a picture to show some differences between the OEM Polaris quick drive gears and Kurt's Polaris gears.
Let's start with the OEM gear setup. Now if you will study the OEM quick drive pulley and belt. You will see the cogs are large with a separation between them of around 11mm. This only allows 28 belt cogs to make surface contact with the bottom pulley when install on a pro rmk chassis.
Now let's study the photo with Kurt's gear down pulley system. You will notice the belt cogs are smaller with a much smaller separation between them. By doing so, this allows 38 belt cogs to make surface contact with the bottom pulley when installed. This is a more efficient way to transfer power through the drive system reducing friction which translates to heat.
This is only a small part that completes this system and it's purpose. We all have to realize that gearing a chain case system and a belt drive system is in theory accomplishing the same thing but do to less rotating mass and friction that is not actually the case. ( In my opinion it's like comparing a team 04ss clutch with a team tied clutch. They both us different helix angle to accomplish the same end result)
I hope this helps and thanks for looking....
Let's start with the OEM gear setup. Now if you will study the OEM quick drive pulley and belt. You will see the cogs are large with a separation between them of around 11mm. This only allows 28 belt cogs to make surface contact with the bottom pulley when install on a pro rmk chassis.
Now let's study the photo with Kurt's gear down pulley system. You will notice the belt cogs are smaller with a much smaller separation between them. By doing so, this allows 38 belt cogs to make surface contact with the bottom pulley when installed. This is a more efficient way to transfer power through the drive system reducing friction which translates to heat.
This is only a small part that completes this system and it's purpose. We all have to realize that gearing a chain case system and a belt drive system is in theory accomplishing the same thing but do to less rotating mass and friction that is not actually the case. ( In my opinion it's like comparing a team 04ss clutch with a team tied clutch. They both us different helix angle to accomplish the same end result)
I hope this helps and thanks for looking....
Have you revealed how you achieve the 2.41 gear ratio?
well a 17 x 41 gives you a 2.41 ratio.
My question.....and I know this is a mtn. sled...but if top speed is calculated at 73.02 mph with the 2.41 and almost 84ish with stock. How does it go down the trail? Unless you are lucky like a few people on here you have to ride trails into where you play. That can be tough if you are running really high rpm's.
So instead of saying it's too low I would like to hear from somebody that has had it on the trail.
My question.....and I know this is a mtn. sled...but if top speed is calculated at 73.02 mph with the 2.41 and almost 84ish with stock. How does it go down the trail? Unless you are lucky like a few people on here you have to ride trails into where you play. That can be tough if you are running really high rpm's.
So instead of saying it's too low I would like to hear from somebody that has had it on the trail.
I had 2.42:1 on the trail and it felt like my 14 163 was over revving and it felt slow. Maybe more clutch weight would have fixed this but going back to 2.25:1 felt much better.
That's kind of what I was thinking it would be like. I am sure it performs well in the application it is designed for. It's a lot of $ to lay down to find out you are running pretty high r's on the trail getting to the play areas.
