The old 14 still outclimbs the new.

cpa · May 25, 2017

Just seems like you are comparing apples to oranges to me. I can tell you for an absolute fact that a 16 with a TKI with the same corresponding gear ratio will destroy an exactly the same well clutched 16 with a chain in the powder. Running them across the flat they are the same. Point them up a hill and it's not close. So many things done to the 14 there is now way just one thing makes all the difference. If I spent $4400 on mods for a sled and it didn't out run a stock sled I would be pretty disappointed. Even if I spent $2k in mods and it didn't I would be disappointed.

Wheeling to maneuver has as much to do with suspension set up and comparing a 153 to a 162 as anything. You will never get the ski lift out of a 162. Especially when the 153 has a 3" track.

I'm just glad there are some lucky few that are still riding 18" of pow

knifedge · May 25, 2017

Just thinking,,, the flatland trail sleds run the same secondary clutch, right?? .....and they shift out and are geared going 100 mph plus....so what holds the mtn sleds back at 65 mph, regardless of gear??

CO 2.0 · May 25, 2017

Ha nevermind, I did the math on my 20/49 gearing on 7 tooth, and top speed on flats is supposed to be 67mph. For some reason I thought it was geared to go in the 70's. Since Mac is geared so much higher I wonder if that helped the upshift and that's why he pulled away, and the combo of having a belt drive. I'd also like to know why and how we smoked 2 belts in a matter of a few miles on his 14. If the clutching was just that hot, or if the belt was coming up out of the sheaves. I know the clutches were pretty damn hot on my 16, and I'm geared way down from his with Team clutches. We both had stock weights in since I smoked a team primary rollers at 1200 mi this season and took out my Cutler weights.

boondocker97 · May 25, 2017

CO 2.0 said:
Ha nevermind, I did the math on my 20/49 gearing on 7 tooth, and top speed on flats is supposed to be 67mph. For some reason I thought it was geared to go in the 70's. Since Mac is geared so much higher I wonder if that helped the upshift and that's why he pulled away, and the combo of having a belt drive. I'd also like to know why and how we smoked 2 belts in a matter of a few miles on his 14. If the clutching was just that hot, or if the belt was coming up out of the sheaves. I know the clutches were pretty damn hot on my 16, and I'm geared way down from his with Team clutches. We both had stock weights in since I smoked a team primary rollers at 1200 mi this season and took out my Cutler weights.

The belt shouldn't walk out of the primary unless you are doing 80+. I've momentarily touched 85 on my 2014 geared 2.52 with 8T drivers (if you believe how accurate the cat speedo is :face-icon-small-dis). The belt life at that moment kinda scares me, but can't be letting my buddies catch me!

WyoBoy1000 · May 26, 2017

cpa said:
Just seems like you are comparing apples to oranges to me. I can tell you for an absolute fact that a 16 with a TKI with the same corresponding gear ratio will destroy an exactly the same well clutched 16 with a chain in the powder. Running them across the flat they are the same. Point them up a hill and it's not close. So many things done to the 14 there is now way just one thing makes all the difference. If I spent $4400 on mods for a sled and it didn't out run a stock sled I would be pretty disappointed. Even if I spent $2k in mods and it didn't I would be disappointed.

Wheeling to maneuver has as much to do with suspension set up and comparing a 153 to a 162 as anything. You will never get the ski lift out of a 162. Especially when the 153 has a 3" track.

I'm just glad there are some lucky few that are still riding 18" of pow

My 16 had about 8k worth of goodies and didn't pull as hard as the 14.
The only reason it went farther was the kmod and a 35lb diet. Pretty much all the same mods, but add a kmod TI skid and hood. Clutching never felt right no matter what I did from gears, to helix, to springs, weights etc...
At 10k the best I found was a 43* helix, 2.52 gears, sw 122/285. Mds weights.
But when I geared it up to a 2.42 it actually pulled harder but wouldn't hold rpm,. It bounced from 72-7800 yet climbed the better until the belt heated. Which was pretty quick. Even though it pulled it still wasnt like the 14.

When i say it's the secondary it's not a guess or pineapples to coconuts. It's a results of thousands of dollars, days of testing, and 100s of hours of thinking.

I even bought the sled back because there was a chance I could be wrong and just thinking it had more pull. But when you take a very well setup 16 and 18. Then walk away with a 55+ lb handicap.
That's f'd up. You can tell it's not the motor. It's the way the clutching pulls.

WyoBoy1000 · May 26, 2017

The first belt was pretty hammered, had about 500 miles and the 2nd owner didn't do it any favors chasing coyote s in the flats. I think he claimed something like 38 of them.
I could tell the belt was haggard. Then running c02 used belt. That thing was used. That was obvious.
On a new belt I never had issue unless on trial.

Btw, I tried 2.42 gears with a tki on a 16, still wouldn't pass 65mph. Still can't explain that one other than secondary.

richardderkevorkian · May 27, 2017

WyoBoy1000 said:
Just so happens I wound up with my old 14.
The 18 is a great sled and I am not trying to take away from what it is. I am however telling anyone wanting more how to get it.
The only place the 14 outperformed was when you really load the track in a climb or hard technical turns where you can plant the track and wheelie to maneuver.
Otherwise the 18 is pretty much what I've been shooting for since '12. Although now the boards need improved and raised, add steering, grippers, clutching and gears. I guess there is a lot to do.
Anyway, the new clutching works pretty good but not as good as the old if fixed.
The 18 primary is good.
The secondary works but doesn't work, the gearing is wrong.

The 14 has a ds can, 911 clutch cover,
stock weights (I ruined the Mds before I sold it because the clutch failed) the Mds actually pulled harder.
The 14 secondary machined by Tom @Mountain valley motor sports in Cody, wy (this is key)
Tki belt Drive with 2.42 gears, 8 tooth drivers with 3" pc.
Burandt boards and steering mod, otherwise stock.
No HP mods. In reality only about 20lb weight loss but i was packing 8-10lbs on the sled that the 18 wasn't.

CO2 and i compared his 16 to the 14 and without gear I'm 55lbs heavier. The 14 pulled on his 16. We switched and I couldn't even pull the hill on his 16 and he flat walked away. It was baffling.
The 18 was better but was also a 162, but it just didn't have the pull. Great all around but the 14 felt like a diesel compared to the others.

On the flat the 18 would walk .5-1.5 lengths right off, I had to lean forward and ease into it to stay within .5.
Then it pulled in the mid a length then ran even.
The pull in the mid wad the only thing that really impressed, but I outweighed the rider on the 18 by 60lbs.

18 is impressive but why is the 14 pulling away when loaded.
I believe it is mainly the diameter of the secondary inner circle.
As much as I would hate to do it, I would go back to the 14 Jack shaft and secondary with machine work and gear up. I just can't leave that much on the table.

Everything I've tried in 16 and 17 never felt right and I knew there was more, now it's proven.

But the 18 is still an animal but I don't like the 162. 153 is a better combo.

As for you turbo guys, it really needs the other clutching to use that boosted torque.

Btw, the 14 is for sale $5500 obo 1180 miles. Needs to go. I'll sell it for 4500 without mods. ($4400 worth of mods)
Or I'll trade someone the mods for stock parts and 2000 (tki, machined secondary, 911 cover, d's can, 3" track)
Also have a mountain fit hood to deal with.

I run a 17 boss primary on my 2013 with the new longer/wider belt that comes on the 18s with a floated big fin secondary from a 15. It makes a huge difference with the longer wider belt you can start it higher in the secondary and get a lower initial take off ratio and it'll run out further on the primary giving you a taller final drive. Got about 400 miles on the new belt and it still looks new

WyoBoy1000 · May 27, 2017

Yep, but I'd get the secondary machined. Big gains there.

I think if you use a 18 primary, 14-15 machined secondary, 8 tooth driver and 2.4-2.5 gear ratio it's going to be ideal. At least until we figure out something else.

Bacon · May 28, 2017

Toms secondary setup is the bomb. Been running it since 2013 on various sleds. My boys have 2015 with the secondaries and 911 covers. Those sleds rip. My oldest went west with a new Axys owner and the poo rider wasn't too happy getting his butt handed to him with 'old technology'.

goridedoo · May 28, 2017

Bacon said:
Toms secondary setup is the bomb. Been running it since 2013 on various sleds. My boys have 2015 with the secondaries and 911 covers. Those sleds rip. My oldest went west with a new Axys owner and the poo rider wasn't too happy getting his butt handed to him with 'old technology'.

LOL. Cat guys and their stories... :face-icon-small-win

Bacon · May 28, 2017

Ya, but it's a good story.

BLITZKRIEG · May 28, 2017

goridedoo said:
LOL. Cat guys and their stories... :face-icon-small-win

I know its weird, doo & poo guys just have bad memories! :face-icon-small-ton

Suzzy-Q · May 30, 2017

Hey wyo is the shift range of the clutches the same? Perhaps the older secondary has a wider or deeper shift allowing more track speed?

richardderkevorkian · May 31, 2017

CO 2.0 said:
He had the stock hood on his. I think he still has that belt drive on there though. Maybe just the combo of the secondary, belt drive, and 8 tooth getting power to the ground better. But I'd have to agree with Mac that there is something up with the 16 secondary. It just doesn't seem to put the power or the top speed to the ground compared to his machined older secondary. I can hardly get to 65mph on mine, but it's geared to go faster than that. I had a 43 helix in, and I think Mac does too unless he changed it before he originally sold that sled.

Cat basically admitted what was wrong with the 16/17 secondary when they put an inch longer belt on the 18s. The belt is to short to ever shift out the primary, it runs to the bottom of the secondary and isn't long enough to shift out the primary. Mark your primary clutch with a sharpy and you'll see that it only makes it 85% of the way up clutch

knifedge · Jun 2, 2017

Interesting....I guess i should check it out...18 clutches should be virtually the same as 16-17 as well as center
distance...
.
Seems running a longer belt would put belt higher in primary clutch at all ratios effectively adding gearing throughout the shift range...True??

Although my 16 runs pretty high in the secondary, but i dont think it goes to the top....

WyoBoy1000 · Jun 2, 2017

The shift is completely different. The 14 feels like.... not sure how to describe it. If you ride dirt bikes it's like slingshoting the clutch on upshift so you get t that throw feel. Back shift feels like when you max out the power and just slip the clutch enough to keep the rpm on the peak torque curve. I've done it in pickups and cars to win street races. Pretty much rev to peak HP and slip the clutch so it holds within 500rpm. Dirt bikes are masse for but vehicles get abused. But a gained 13mph in the quarter. Lol

The 16-18 yes the 18 feels like your in high gear but 4 low. Hits hard with a little zip and falls on it's face. Stuck on the backshift instead of upshift.

Longer belt might change ratio, and grip, maybe a little feel but overall it feels the same. Just smoother.

I had to put the 18 belt on the 14 and it didn't seem any longer, its a little wider so I'm not sure what your referring to

WyoBoy1000 · Jun 2, 2017

I'm going to let that sled go for 5k or best offer of anyone knows someone looking.
I'd rather not but need to repurpose the money.

polemite.productions · Jun 8, 2017

CO 2.0 said:
Funny thing is we were both pulling the exact same track speed up the hill in 18" of pow. But his 14 was easily pulling away from my 16. We were thinking the 8 tooth on his might be some of it, but more than likely it is the clutch. On flats they were about even. I'm geared at 20/49 with 7 tooth. My 16 feels snappy and revy, but just doesn't feel like the torque is there compared to Macs 14.

where does the speedo pick up it's reading?

i can't keep every detail of your sleds mods in mind, but i'm reading a lot about clutching, gearing, and drivers in this thread... if those things are changed, it's not likely that the actual track speed is anywhere close to what your speedo's are reading.

boondocker97 · Jun 8, 2017

polemite.productions said:
where does the speedo pick up it's reading?

i can't keep every detail of your sleds mods in mind, but i'm reading a lot about clutching, gearing, and drivers in this thread... if those things are changed, it's not likely that the actual track speed is anywhere close to what your speedo's are reading.

Speed sensor is on the end of the trackshaft. As long as the driver tooth number hasn't changed for that particular sled then the speedometer should still be as accurate as it was from the factory. CO's '16 still has the factory 7T drivers and Wyo's has the factory 8T drivers.

If the two sleds truly are running the same track speed in the meat of the climb, and that is where the '14 is pulling ahead, then the controlling factor is not motor/clutching/gearing related. It is a geometry/suspension/traction difference. If the '14 is pulling ahead early in the run then it's possibly an upshift advantage.

WyoBoy1000 · Jun 27, 2017

It's not the track speed, its the clutching. Just like a turbo, I've seen the same track speed with same setup. Track speed is a reference to go off of not a scientific accurate gauge.

You would think after 6+ years of proving one thing after another ppl would realize when i make a statement it's got roots, not random assumptions.

It's the way I built the sled to have the most optimal clutching for a result. It proves the newer sleds are leaving a lot on the table. I already factored all the other things your bringing up.

The old 14 still outclimbs the new.

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

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads