Proper belt deflection on my 2013 1100T forces belt too low into secondary

Cosarguy · Dec 16, 2012

Just finished up my EVO mod stuff and decided to set up the clutch by creep. As stated above, I ended up with the top of the belt cogs approximately 1/16" below the top of the secondary to obtain the proper "creep" belt deflection. Rule of thumb has always been to place the bottom of the belt cog even the top of the pulley, with the cogs exposed, and that would get you close. Not so with this setup. Primary appears to be shifting out all the way so I can only assume the factory belt is too short, or the center to center distance was set wrong from the factory. This sled is brand new, has not been on the snow. Besides starting out in 2nd gear, I could see where the belt could bottom out in the secondary before the primary is fully shifted out :face-icon-small-fro

What are you guys finding for your belt settings?

akMcat · Dec 16, 2012

My wifes dad also has a 2013 1100T and we were discussing the exact same thing the other day. The belt sits down in the secondary sheaves approx 1/16th of and inch when the deflection is set correctly. We haven't seen any problems yet, but he has only been on a couple 50 mile easy break in rides.

taz1000 · Dec 16, 2012

My 2013 has the same problem belt sits down in the secondary. also blew the first belt at 90 miles.

Cosarguy · Dec 16, 2012

Since there was little belt problems with the 1100T's last year, and it appears you guys are having the same problem, I'm assuming this is a new 2013 issue. What did they do different? Is it a different belt? Center to center mod. What?

m8magicandmystery · Dec 16, 2012

belt deflection is more critical then top cog riding up out of the primary a bit...stay with the proper deflection and forget about the belt sticking up..imo

knifedge · Dec 16, 2012

http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=328134&highlight=ultimax

--read through this thread

idacatman2 · Dec 17, 2012

same thing

I too have a 13' M1100T and the first ride out I set the deflection so that the cogs were over the sheeve, it was way way too tight, sled would creep away. Ran it that way thinking belt would wear in a little, well the first belt disintegrated at 65 miles. I set for the new belt using the creep method and it is sitting like you guys say about 1/16th below now, I have ran it that way for 45 miles now and no problems yet...I hope we arent inheriting the problems of the 800's from last year. I really really hope they are just different than last years, and that setting the deflection by creep is going to get us where we need to be.

Greg

RACINSTATION · Dec 17, 2012

On the 1100 with proper belt deflection the belt WILL be riding down in the sheaves lower than the 800, or any previous Cat for that matter.

ZRrrr · Dec 19, 2012

Cosarguy said:
Since there was little belt problems with the 1100T's last year, and it appears you guys are having the same problem, I'm assuming this is a new 2013 issue. What did they do different? Is it a different belt? Center to center mod. What?

Where you been??? There are plenty of us with belt issues on the 1100T!

ZRrrr · Dec 20, 2012

RACINSTATION said:
On the 1100 with proper belt deflection the belt WILL be riding down in the sheaves lower than the 800, or any previous Cat for that matter.

I have been spending considerable time trying to deal with the issue, and several things are coming to light. First off, many people are finding their C to C not to the 11.5" spec, but at 11.6" or more. That would make the stock belt too short right from the get go. Offset is not good. I have floated my clutch and found it wants to continually move inwards. Cat went to the 1.45 spec in 2013 from 1.485 in 2012. A step in the right direction in my opinion. Blew a belt on the weekend and had a good look over the clutches. There seems to be good evidence that the belt pulled into the secondary and started to slip bad. Part I do not understand is I rode very hard in 4' of fresh all day long. It wasn't until the last 2 miles to the truck that the belt blew. Not enough torque feedback to keep the clutches within the sheaves? Need more helix finish angle and longer belt?

Turbo11T · Dec 20, 2012

ZRrrr said:
I have been spending considerable time trying to deal with the issue, and several things are coming to light. First off, many people are finding their C to C not to the 11.5" spec, but at 11.6" or more. That would make the stock belt too short right from the get go. Offset is not good. I have floated my clutch and found it wants to continually move inwards. Cat went to the 1.45 spec in 2013 from 1.485 in 2012. A step in the right direction in my opinion. Blew a belt on the weekend and had a good look over the clutches. There seems to be good evidence that the belt pulled into the secondary and started to slip bad. Part I do not understand is I rode very hard in 4' of fresh all day long. It wasn't until the last 2 miles to the truck that the belt blew. Not enough torque feedback to keep the clutches within the sheaves? Need more helix finish angle and longer belt?

I suspect that possibly the belt is to short like you said. At that point when going into full shift(likely on the trail on the way back to the truck). The belt bottomed in the secondary and BOOM. It either slipped and disenigrated or was to tight and snapped.

I am interested to know if any guys have actually had issues in the deep snow with the belt.

Evolution Powersports · Dec 20, 2012

Turbo11T said:
I suspect that possibly the belt is to short like you said. At that point when going into full shift(likely on the trail on the way back to the truck). The belt bottomed in the secondary and BOOM. It either slipped and disenigrated or was to tight and snapped.

I am interested to know if any guys have actually had issues in the deep snow with the belt.

As TURBO11T has said we believe the belts are too short and/or the secondary clutches have some variance as to how far they will open. Guys who have secondaries that will not open all the way or bind coupled with a shorter than spec belt (Most of the belts we have seen are on the shorter side of the + - spec from Cat) will blow belts with relatively few miles. Evo & some of our dealers & customers are testing the 084 M8 belt. We are seeing belt temps that are MUCH lower because the additional length effectively gears the sled down and the belt is not being pulled and stretched like the stock one is. We will have a full report on this when we have finished testing.

Sage Crusher · Dec 20, 2012

Evolution Powersports said:
As TURBO11T has said we believe the belts are too short and/or the secondary clutches have some variance as to how far they will open. Guys who have secondaries that will not open all the way or bind coupled with a shorter than spec belt (Most of the belts we have seen are on the shorter side of the + - spec from Cat) will blow belts with relatively few miles. Evo & some of our dealers & customers are testing the 084 M8 belt. We are seeing belt temps that are MUCH lower because the additional length effectively gears the sled down and the belt is not being pulled and stretched like the stock one is. We will have a full report on this when we have finished testing.

Thank you Jim- this kind of information is priceless!!

S/C

ZRrrr · Dec 20, 2012

Sage Crusher said:
Thank you Jim- this kind of information is priceless!!

S/C

X2!!

Turbo11T · Dec 20, 2012

Jim. . . The -082 belt specs at 46.258"+-1.78" The 084 Specs at 47.519"+-.178". Can the deflection on the secondary take up An inch of belt?

I don't know?

Here are some numbers for thought.

Cat Proclimb secondary 10.75"DIA

Top of belt DIA in clutch
10.5" Cir. 32.97"
10.6" Cir. 33.284"
10.7" Cir 33.598
10.8" Cir 33.912"
10.9" Cir 34.226"

I think I am figuring that right. . . So if you can move the belt up in the primary you can take up 1.256" of belt length? That would assume the belt is sitting .100 below the edge of the primary currently. And then you bring it up to just before you see the threads on the belt?

Whos got a 084 for me to try or even a 083?

ZRrrr · Dec 20, 2012

Check it out.......

type_a_positive · Dec 20, 2012

I got a XS822 (Carlisle replacement for 084, recommended by Clutchweight on HCS) on for testing, but I am on fireman duty for a week, so no sledding until next thursday. And it is dumping down here right now....
I will be running the XS822 at 1.450 offset, as I have not yet cut my 2012 secondary down for the 1.420 recommended offset for longer belts.

Turbo11T · Dec 20, 2012

ZRrrr said:
Check it out.......

I would have to say your picture shows exactly what is happening!!! That belt bottomed in the secondary on the helix! There is no Doubt about that.

type_a_positive said:
I got a XS822 (Carlisle replacement for 084, recommended by Clutchweight on HCS) on for testing, but I am on fireman duty for a week, so no sledding until next thursday. And it is dumping down here right now....
I will be running the XS822 at 1.450 offset, as I have not yet cut my 2012 secondary down for the 1.420 recommended offset for longer belts.

That belt is spec'd to be more than a inch longer than the stock belt. Were you able to get the right belt deflection with it? And will you be able to adjust the deflection for when the belt wears?

madmax · Dec 20, 2012

ZRrrr said:
Check it out.......

Is that with or without the secondary spacer?

ZRrrr · Dec 20, 2012

Without spacer. This is a 2012 Turbo, stock belt, stock 42/40 helix.

Proper belt deflection on my 2013 1100T forces belt too low into secondary

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads