@turboal
why is it that the cat and polaris dont need clutch kits.
---I dont think skidoo's need clutch kits either. Look at the numbers of sleds sold, insured and registered sleds and then compare how many of your product gets out there. Just have to remember, only 4%~6% of registered / insured snowmobile owners in N. America dive into aftermarket.
So say 1000 sleds and its a possible maximum of 60 sled owners spend $ in aftermarket as a whole and how much would that value reflect a percentage;
Suspension...
Clutching...
Chassis...
Body...
The other 940 sled owners don't venture away from showroom stock condition.
We are motivated by 5 elements. Vanity, fear, lust, greed and jealousy. We're just tapping into the individuals who enjoy the warm feeling of some of these emotions.
if you were to compare what cat and poo guys spend you would notice over the years they don't seem to have the same factory generated cost in clutching.
---I've never dug up evidence to come to this conclusion. Im not able to get my hands on other brands for serious amounts of time.
I have observed that the clutch castings are more beefy, thicker, machined different, different bushing materials, larger diameter, wider material thickness..subtle changes here n there. You look at a primary from nowadays and yesteryear and they are different shape/form however concept still the same. (just like tra since 85 has changed, evolved)
try a polaris set up on the doo and there is a very noticeable difference ,biggest noticeable difference is that the polaris primary doesn't seem to hit a wall on up shift . why is it that the doo does . because that is its design flaw in mountain use.
---then change the ramp to get the primary to push harder. If there is a wall being hit, then the system is stalling and dwelling in a range to where the ramp is not allowing to upshift. Choose another ramp to overcome that or find out on the ramp where the "stall" is happening and start to grind there to make the ramp with a curve to allow the lever to shift harder.
I made ramps to where when the 800 was at full throttle off the start, the clutch would push so hard that the engine would hit 7100 rpms. I made a set of test ramps that pushed not so hard and the same engine tached at 8500 on the rev limiter (off the start)
the arms in a tra reach a point that there leverage is stalled easily
---the ramp provides an angled surface for the lever roller to push against. The angle of the ramp at the point of contact to the roller determines "how much" centrifugal force is translated into axial force.
On a clutch with flyweights (cat/yam/poo) - the contact angle of the spider roller vs. the flyweight/cam arm curve angle determines "how much" centrifugal force is translated into axial force.
----The sum of this account is "push force is determined by ramp/curve angle"
So then it does not matter what primary clutch you have, it matters what ramp/curve angle is being used to provide push whether it be cam-arm or tra ramp.
we haven't had to spend a dime on keeping them working as good as it gets.
---I don't know how good it could get. I know how good I can get as far as handling a sled w/stock clutching to which I aint the most skillful operator so stock clutching was pretty good for me. I thought I could handle a sled pretty decently...or so I thought. Now I have met some test guys who you know personally to which they are beyond me of their state, condition and ability to run these sleds like I've never ever seen in person or any videos. They take the sled past its stock clutching capacity and required more to satisfy their wants.
my largest frustration with the doo clutching is there constant use of the secondary spring with 300lbs of end load .wish they would offer a softer sec spring by 20 lbs.
---it could be done if the helix was a larger diameter but at this current configuration the lowest angle (straight) can be had with QRS is a 38 degree. The way a helix angle can get lower is to take the radius of the helix and make it larger so the range of motion can allow the roller to go lower than 38 degrees. The helix must start with a larger start angle to allow the room for the final angle to get lower than 38 degrees.
If the secondary had 3 rollers then there would be about 100 degrees of freedom. At this point with the 2 rollers there is only about 80 deg maximum of freedom to which limits the overall average helix angles.
Now a question arises. If the current spring had 300 lbs of end load, what spring forces would it offer at 45mph track speed?
If a new secondary spring was offered at xxx/280 lbs of end load, what spring forces would it offer at 45mph track speed? What is the force difference and would there be enough force offered in the secondary to provide rated rpms at full throttle? What new helix angle would be required if any to maintain rated rpms at full throttle?
curious if you know Joey , as to why they chose the reverse angle helix ?
---At the time in 2008 there were many praises with the straight 42 degree of working good at full load in deep snow however complaints of had to clicker down to prevent over rev on the road and at higher elevations than 8000 feet the flyweight was getting reduced down to 13, 12, 11g to maintain 8300 under full throttle that when in light loads at say 10000 feet going across a lake or down a road, the engine would hit the rev limiter. They could have stuck with the straight 42 with purple secondary spring and use a somewhat similar ramp to a 441 or just use the 441 with a primary spring that would allow 8200~8300 at full throttle out on the road.
---For the reason mentioned above this is why I started to make the ramps that I made, was to address the observed problems.
Heck even my mountain ramps in the stock 08 with 42 degree helix works pretty dang good.
I know one thing, I would not have what I have without guys like Travvy, Brad, JumpinJack, Alan...etc to name some.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@winterbrew
Joe, what do you think of the lower gears
---any lower gearing yields an enhancement of track speed staying power under full throttle
http://www.mxzx-revzone.com/article/gearing-150.asp#gear21_to_19
and different belt?
---Belt Temperature Limits (belt death sentence temps)
Belt temperatures my test guys and myself, personally measured first hand knowledge on 163's and 154's
The 377, can take up to 205 degrees, at 210 the chord will start to work its way out.
The 288, can take up to 195 degrees, at 200 the chord will start to work its way out.
The 166 / 391 can take up to 185 degrees, at 190 the chord will start to work its way out.
In the final analysis, the operator should have the ability to check the drive belt and keep an eye on the heat while they run the sled as hard as they can. Push the limit and watch the color of the side of the drive belt due to heat.
http://www.mxzx-revzone.com/article/belt-143.asp#rev_800_belts
Leave them with your setup or change gears and belt like the '11's??
---Does not matter to me, we have tested 800R &ETEC8 XP from 21:45 to 19:51 and can calibrate for whatever is being used.
Just asking because I know that will be the next question from your customers.
---I have a good answer tailored to their specific question and requirement that starts here
http://www.mxzx-revzone.com/article/gearing-150.asp#gear21_to_19
and careful to examine other requirements that need to be met.
Going to miss that reverse angle helix aren't you?
---don't matter to me. Knowing the values of latest angles and spring forces that the new system produces, having a perception of what the factory is limited to calibrate with, a few years under my belt more than some clutching bears, I'm confident my kit will still be an individual, sticking out among the stock production.
happy highmarking
Joey:devil:
