• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

141 Pro RMK

Bushwacker1

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2008
297
183
43
Wisconsin
Crazy cool build please post some video. I am so impressed. Makes me wish I weren't taking the chickens way out starting with a 550 polaris lxt 144". Super inspiring for sure!
I am glad to provide inspiration to others for their projects as well as sharing my own projects. Starting with the LTX is a great plan. You wont be bogged down designing and making parts like I have which just seems to take forever. There are lots of Pro RMK parts available that will let you build a much lighter sled than what you are starting out with, and you can also do it in stages if you want to spread out the costs over time. You will be able to upgrade that rear skid to the better Walker Evans shocks also. Other things keep pushing my project back so it will be a while before this thing gets done, tuned, and validated. I still need to get back to finishing my new motor mounts (about 75% done now) and a revised air box and the other revisions I had planned. My kids are already ready for more power than this one will provide but I still want to finish it. They rode their Indy Evo's when we went out west this year that I installed longer tracks to and they worked well. Both have the same 550 144 rails you will be using with Walker shocks. One has a 146 x 1.75" Hurricane track with an offset axle, and the other has a 141 cobra 1.6" with some minor rail mods and 7 tooth drivers so you have a lot of options on tracks for your project. The 144 with 2.52 pitch tracks work well but are heavier than the 2.86 or the 3" pitch tracks. I think the Power claw 141 x 2.25 would be the best powder track for a kids sled when you consider the weight of the track (around 46#) and their performance in the deep snow. I posted info on the 141 conversion a while back that may be of interest to you and the issues getting a 141 to work with those rails. I am already thinking about how to get an older Fuji 500 engine into one of these Pro RMK chassis to get the power up to the 80 Hp level and still be under the 400 lb mark. I am currently bogged down on some other projects but plan on posting updates when more progress is made.
 
C
Feb 21, 2008
255
12
18
Chanhassen MN
I was looking to make gears but as you did but realized I would come up short and bought a tki kit that had the same ratio as my stock chain case. I would like to pick your brain on how you did that still.
 

Bushwacker1

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2008
297
183
43
Wisconsin
I started with a TKI kit and Tom was able to supply a custom gear ratio as low as 2.75 : 1 from his off the shelf items for a quick drive back plate. He was very helpful to get me to a deeper ratio than the stock quick drive provided. I still wanted to get closer to 3.0: 1 but he did not have anything available on the shelf. For him to design and make only a few larger bottom sprockets was expensive. I also wanted to get to a smaller tooth count on the top sprocket than he had in stock. I then started searching and was able to find a shop that has the needed equipment to machine the sprocket teeth. I then designed my own hubs and sprockets and had the blanks machined, then had the teeth machined on. It was still more expensive than buying off the shelf but when there is nothing available you don't have many options. For your 550 engine I would think a 2.75 ratio would most likely be good for even a deeper lug 2.5 144/146 track, but if your kit is a chain case kit (opposed to a quick drive backplate) you will be limited on how big of a bottom sprocket will fit in the case. For my 250 cc engine I was concerned that 2.75: 1 would be over geared for my 141 1.6 and my clutches would never shift out. 7 tooth or even 6 tooth drivers are also an option to get lower gearing but increases rolling resistance and track attack angel will also increase. I now have options to test once I get the new sprockets mounted and determine that the take up idler will not need modifications. Just need to get back to this project before the snow flys again.
 

BeartoothBaron

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 2, 2017
1,243
1,320
113
Roberts, MT
I love this build! I've got an old Indy Trail I want to build around a similar lightweight concept, using a 136 skid and track I've got sitting around to start with. You mentioned the 550F as the "easy way out," and I'm curious whether there was a reason you went with a liquid single over a fan twin. The 440 and 488 fans were worth 50-55 HP; the Poo 550F is around 65 or so I hear. That said, I wonder if it's possible to drop the jug off an XCR 800 onto what you've got. If so, you'd have another ten HP.

What's really intriguing to me is the custom belt drive sprockets. A belt drive makes perfect sense for this kind of build, but the cheap options (using quickdrive components) puts you in a very poor gearing range. I've even dug through Gates catalogs to see if there's some off-the-shelf option using a different belt. As best I can tell, the belt exists, but the sprockets are steel or iron – pretty much negating any weight advantage – and getting them splined would be another issue. If I actually start making progress on my build, I'll have to talk to TKI. I'd think being able to use a Pro-ride belt drive backing plate with custom sprockets that'd give you 2.75:1 would work well for what I've got in mind, but probably still lower would be better. Most fan motors are supposed to turn 7000 RPM or less, and looking at a gearing chart I have, you'd need 3.75 to get 40 MPH track speed at full shift (1:1 clutch ratio). You probably don't want to be at full shift at 40 MPH and limited to that speed, but I'd still want over 3:1 to get optimum gearing without a smaller driver.

Anyway, keep us updated if you make more progress! I'm convinced there's potential for a truly fun, lightweight, easy-to-ride sled along these lines. Trouble is, none of the big manufacturers want to commit to it, which is understandable because doing it right means building an all-new sled from the ground up. That would ruin you if it didn't sell. So we get sleds like the EVO and Blast that go halfway, but are bound to disappoint because they're overweight parts bin builds.
 

Bushwacker1

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2008
297
183
43
Wisconsin
You mentioned the 550F as the "easy way out," and I'm curious whether there was a reason you went with a liquid single over a fan twin. The 440 and 488 fans were worth 50-55 HP; the Poo 550F is around 65 or so I hear. That said, I wonder if it's possible to drop the jug off an XCR 800 onto what you've got. If so, you'd have another ten HP.

A belt drive makes perfect sense for this kind of build, but the cheap options (using quickdrive components) puts you in a very poor gearing range. I've even dug through Gates catalogs to see if there's some off-the-shelf option using a different belt. . I'd think being able to use a Pro-ride belt drive backing plate with custom sprockets that'd give you 2.75:1 would work well for what I've got in mind, but probably still lower would be better. Most fan motors are supposed to turn 7000 RPM or less, and looking at a gearing chart I have, you'd need 3.75 to get 40 MPH track speed at full shift (1:1 clutch ratio). You probably don't want to be at full shift at 40 MPH and limited to that speed, but I'd still want over 3:1 to get optimum gearing without a smaller driver.

I'm convinced there's potential for a truly fun, lightweight, easy-to-ride sled along these lines. Trouble is, none of the big manufacturers want to commit to it, which is understandable because doing it right means building an all-new sled from the ground up. So we get sleds like the EVO and Blast that go halfway, but are bound to disappoint because they're overweight parts bin builds.

The 550 pro ride chassis is a great starting point because they will accept many of the Pro RMK light weight parts that are available.

I went with the single for a few reasons. Weight was a huge factor as my engine is under 50 lbs with the clutch on it. The fan twins don't come in much lighter than a more powerful water cooled engine but you do have the added weight of coolant around a gallon or so. Fan engine output is limited as running temps can vary with outside temps and ground speed. A fan cooled powder sled does not get much cooling at low ground speeds in deep snow while at max demand for power. Tight tolerances on bores to pistons and higher performance designs are intentionally avoided to make sure the fan engines will survive less stable operating environment's. Polaris did do a good job on ducting on the EVO to be sure the engine gets outside air for cooling but I am not sure if it gets impeded when running in extreme deep conditions. The 488 fan is built on the same platform as a 80hp water-cooled Fuji 500 so there is much to be gained to add water cooling. My fan cooled starlite engine probably did not have more than 25 Hp so adding water cooling better porting a larger carb and a tuned pipe all seemed like a good way to increase output. I also pondered bolting other cylinders to my bottom end to get better porting, reed induction, and exhaust valves but found that stroke, bolt patterns, and case to cylinder fit needs to match and each engine seems to be unique and retro fit would require a lot of time and effort. I did find that the Fugi starlite 250, Indy fan 488, and the 500 liquid all are very similar on stroke, bore, and bolt patterns. My thought was a water cooled 250 would be close to a fan cooled 340, be lighter and not suffer from heat issues off trail at low ground speeds. I also knew I would be carrying the weight of the coolers on my sled even if I was using them for cooling or using a fan cooled engine. The Polaris big block engines (600, 700, and 800) would offer a great platform a for larger cc single engine if you were to cut one in half. I have looked at this and found that it may be possible but would require crank disassembly and reassembly by someone skilled in that is required. Cutting the case in half looks to be straight forward (using the mag side) but getting new motor mounts for the new PTO side may require some welding and machining. The big block engine has an outboard oil and water pump that runs off the flywheel so there would be no issues with retaining those systems. Those are all reed inducted engines and the 700 and 800 came with exhaust valves so the out put of a 400 could be around 70 HP. There were many twin pipes made by the aftermarket so finding a tuned pipe would be possible. The cylinders without exhaust valves have the same head bolt patterns as some of the Polaris watercraft engines so a single head cover from one of those with an aftermarket cylinder head may also work on a build of this kind.

I believe the belt drive is the way to go, mostly for efficiency. Even if your sprockets don't come in lighter than a chain and gears rolling resistance will be reduced. TKI got me to around 2.75 with the quick drive backer plate. As my build is working with lower HP I wanted to get into the 3: 1 range so custom was my only option. I was not to concerned about a lower top speed on the trail. I wanted to gear down so my clutches could shift out to at least mid point in deep powder and provide enough torque to turn a higher lug track in those conditions with the limited out put that my engine would produce. I also found belt length options for the gates Polychain is limited. My 72 tooth bottom sprocket will need to have some clearance mods made to the quick drive back plate to clear and some belly pan cutout and a cover made so there is not much room to get a larger bottom sprocket on the pro ride chassis. A 22 tooth top sprocket is also skirting Gates smallest diameter recommendation to wrap their belt around so 3.27 is probably the deepest gearing possible without redesigning sprocket offset from the backplate.

As far as the MFG building a true light weight entry level sled I agree that a complete .75 build is more than they are willing to step up to. Cat took a big step in designing an engine and we will see how that works in their chassis. Still waiting to see an actual weight on that sled and how it performs off trail. Polaris did a good job on the EVO trail version for entry level riders on performance, handling, fit to smaller riders, and price without having to incur complete design and mfg costs. On the EVO RMK they fell short of what they could be providing with parts that are available from the PRO RMK parts bin. If they would offer the forward rider position with available light weight parts I believe they could build a 375 Lb Evo 141, 144, or 146 that would actually fill the void for entry level off trail riders. I bought two Evo trail sleds and found them to work well for trail. When the RMK Evo came out I expected a sub 400 lb sled but that did not happen, so I long tracked my trail sleds instead and ended up with close to the same thing they were offering. Now I am waiting for Polaris to build a 80 hp water cooled 375 lb RMk but my kids will be on 600s by that time.
 

BeartoothBaron

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 2, 2017
1,243
1,320
113
Roberts, MT
Wow, I think I've brainstormed this pretty well, but you're a lap ahead of me here!

My thinking on the engine is that with enough attention to ducting, most of the heat issues could be avoided. Deep, blower powder would probably overcome any ducting setup and choke cooling air to the fan, but I suspect any build like this would have too little power and track to get far in that anyway. The old Fuji motors are awesome for what they are, but there is room for improvement in both weight and power. The iron liners also hurt the cooling (on both liquid and fan motors – was just reading about heat buildup issues on early Storm motors). Custom AL-nikasil jugs on the old 488 crankcase might be the ticket if cost were no object... Overall, I suspect the 550F will be the engine I go to eventually, but I've got a couple Fuji fan motors I'm going to experiment with first. One of the main things I want to try is coatings on the pistons and combustion chambers. My hope is that I'll be able to port and pipe a 488F the same as the 488LC, pushing power into the mid-70s, while keeping the weight advantage of no water pump, coolers, or coolant. Hopefully the coatings would be enough to address the added heat; what I've read about people who've opened up fan motors without addressing heat buildup is that the motor will just overheat and lose power or burn up at some point. Down the road (probably way down), I'd like to experiment with EFI on a fan motor. I'm pretty sure I could adapt 90's Poo EFI run by a Microsquirt, and I think such a setup could at least keep the engine from burning itself down without just having to run rich all the time. Most of the attraction of the fan twin is it's a fairly cheap drop-in way to drop a lot of weight; I'm hoping some outside-the-box thinking will eventually mitigate the heat question, and how much potential my ideas have largely depend on that.

I hadn't given any thought to a single-cylinder engine because of the lack of choices without a difficult custom build. Putting aside the heat buildup question, to match the HP of a 550F, you'd probably be looking at no less than a halved 800. It'd be interesting to see how the weight of such a motor would compare. I'd also wonder what the NVH qualities would be; that's well into thumper territory. It may be close enough that it'd come down to a "pick your poison" proposition between NVH and cooling issues. What intrigues me most with the single-cylinder idea is a build around the AC Blast motor. It's too rich for my blood for the time being, but I'd love to see someone try it; that might be the best practical choice for a single. It's "less than 50lb," but that's probably the bare motor. Also vague is "65+ HP-class performance." I'm guessing it's got at least 60HP, but all that's really saying is it's equivalent to current Poo and Doo fan motors. It uses a balance shaft, which should address most of the NVH concerns. I'm pretty committed to fans for what I'm planning, but if I hit a wall with that, the Blast motor makes the most sense for the next step if/when I can get one cheap. Personally, I can't see building a big single when that would probably cost more and be a lot more work than buying a Blast and selling the rest of the sled in parts. For someone with more know-how and equipment, a cut-in-half twin could be a lot cheaper. Anyway, hats off for creating a lightweight single! Hopefully there's more headroom there; just a guess, but I bet the Star Lite case can handle even more HP.

This, plus some snow on the ground, has me thinking about the next step for my project. I've gotta take the jugs from my old 440F to get bored and honed, and I'm working on getting the quickdrive components to convert it to a belt drive. Even if it doesn't work well in the mountains, it should at least be a fun sled to ride around the house when there's snow.
 
Last edited:
C

Clarke673

Somewhere between too dumb to quit and flat earth
Dec 2, 2007
3,138
483
83
Gardiner Montana
I have a sled build simular to what your after and to put it bluntly, it literally revolves around a 2014 Suzuki Burgham. 400 engine. Run the track around the engine. Keep the weight low. 4 stroke and e start cause kids. The rest? Well it can all be done. I don't have any so my intentions are not the best right now but maybe in a few years?

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk
 
Premium Features