Lightest drive systems capable of 200+ HP

SNWMBL

Well-known member
Feb 14, 2010
334
116
43
AK
So I've been kicking around the idea of using the STM drive, a 162x14x3 and building the tunnel narrow, around 14.75". Just an idea for now, but I keep thinking about how fun a narrow, Phazer width sled would be with 200 HP. Only downside would be the narrow track width but at sub 400 lbs I wonder how much it would really matter?

I know guys were long tracking firecats when they first came out, how'd they do with 159's?

Still just throwing ideas around at this point.
 

LoudHandle

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 21, 2011
3,871
2,738
113
Valdez, AK
I considered the narrow track for one of my builds as well: with our wet coastal snow I thought a 12-14" wide track would be a kick. That was back before snow bikes became the rage, more of an ultra light snow hawk build, anyway never happened due to divorce and other life interuptions.

On the drive system I PM'd you about and discussed when I stopped by the other week. I have some news, at a full 15" wide, with the stock Polaris PRO '13-'14 drive shaft, my lengthened bearing plate, C3 based belt drive, and modified stock Polaris PRO '13-'14 drive shaft, 9 tooth drivers, the brake you lent me (located on the drive shaft), Wilwood Power Lite Caliper and pads; weight is sub 25#'s.

On your tuber, if you used the Wahl Bros. Aluminum Bearing flangettes you could lighten it further. As well as Ti fasteners and other tweaks, sub 23#'s and under $2000 is do able.

Secondary of your choice.

Food for thought.
 

SNWMBL

Well-known member
Feb 14, 2010
334
116
43
AK
Thanks for the numbers. You're setup would allow for much longer centers which is a huge plus for running larger drivers and keeping the jack shaft out of the tunnel. I figured the same with the narrower track. The majority of our snow is wet, and the 162x14 would have almost the same footprint as my 156x15, but would help control the wheely affect and I'm sure be incredibly nimble. I wonder if the STM can fit a 14.5" track or if it has to be 14"? Maybe I'll give them a call.

I wish I had a junk track to cut down and give it a try.
 

SNWMBL

Well-known member
Feb 14, 2010
334
116
43
AK
4 years later and I just weighed a complete Apex drivetrain setup. Jackshaft, driveshaft, Avid drivers, chain & gears, case halves w bolts, Nytro brake rotor & caliper, all bearings and hardware. Only thing missing are the 2 aluminum bearing holders on clutch side.

27.54 lbs. (not including secondary clutch). HEAVY
 

LoudHandle

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 21, 2011
3,871
2,738
113
Valdez, AK
Polaris PRO QD verse LoudHandle's chosen upgrades for reference

An update from my previous post. I'm not using a bearing plate anymore. I'm actually just replacing the tunnel sides with thicker sheet that has my 9 inch center to center built in. Jack shaft stays in the stock location, driveshaft moves down and back, I also raise the tunnel height a little and build a double pass cooler out of a thermodynamically efficient extrusion that only resides under the fuel tank. No more ice ball on top of the tunnel.


Thought I'd post the info I just PM'd SNWMBL

The stock PRO QD drivetrain w/o drivers is; 16.412 #'s (weight is with the 4 Wahl round Aluminum Flangettes with standard bearings and snap rings)

959 Grams; Stock caliper w/ mount, pads, and hose
835 Grams; Stock disk (unlightened, ZRP will lighten it for $75)
896 Grams; 4 Standard bearings in Walh Broz round flangettes with snap rings
1807 Grams; Stock Aluminum large hex driveshaft w/ stock collar and QD fastener (no drivers) no stock Bearing or flangette
1806 Grams; Stock Jack Shaft with Stock Fasteners
1155 Grams Stock QD complete

I don't have any unmodified C3 setups but with my Titanium and Ceramic hybrid bearing upgrade 58T lower and the full range of upper sprockets (in the ratios I chosen to run for my 9 tooth drivers) it comes in at 1234-1295 Grams

I would not run the stock caliper, the Wilwood PS1 is a much better double piston caliper and will mount easier without the Stock heavy steel slide shoe mount, and be far lighter (it will actually bolt right up to the stock Polaris chain case or QD plate w/o any modifications).

So even if you chose to upgrade to an aftermarket belt drive, 1 or two of the better aftermarket driveshaft collars (Happy Face is my recommendation), run the stock shaft or one of my double splined drive shafts. Your still almost 5-6#s lighter, depending on the AVID driver weight penalty.


My current stage of development is 18.5 #'s complete with 9 T 2.86" P involute drivers
5217 Grams; My double spline driveshaft complete with 9T drivers, bearings in Wahl Flangettes, 58 T C3 sprocket, Yeti disk with my aluminum hub, Wilwood PS1 caliper with Ti bolt upgrade, My aluminum caliper mount / Wahl flangette adapter, Happy Face collar with Ti fastener upgrade, TI shaft bolts with heavy BRP steel washers.
845 Grams; TI upgraded C3 drive minus the 58 T sprocket (heaviest ratio)
2350 Jack Shaft w/ loaded Wahl Flangettes and stock steel fasteners and BRP heavy steel washers.

My plans are to get the shaft flat washers water jetted out of some 1/4" 6-4 TI plate I have and go to all TI shaft fasteners.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,815
5,589
113
Northeast SD
In 1977, John Deere introduced a true direct drive.
The driven clutch jackshaft was also the drive shaft.


This could still be a viable concept. the obstacle being driven clutch diameter.
 

Sheetmetalfab

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 5, 2010
4,851
2,401
113
Ak
In 1977, John Deere introduced a true direct drive.
The driven clutch jackshaft was also the drive shaft.


This could still be a viable concept. the obstacle being driven clutch diameter.


Polaris star 250 was that way also.

Way too high geared for any load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

volcano buster

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
3,518
1,018
113
Stayton Oregon
Not to derail this thread, but whatever happened to the rear track drive system that was introduced a couple years back? Rumors had it that it was more efficient than having the drivers in the front of the track.
 

SNWMBL

Well-known member
Feb 14, 2010
334
116
43
AK
Thought I’d update. I ended up buying a used non reverse Apex chaincase setup. Cut the jackshaft short, ditched the heavy hardware and retained the upper gear with a snap ring. Clutch side will use an alu bearing holder. Bought a 6” drilled cart racing rotor and lightweight caliper to put the brake on the driveshaft below the clutch. Narrowing everything to use a 15.5” wide tunnel. Then ground the top of the cover down(grinding off the old brake caliper mounting ears)and bought a seal plug for where the jackshaft use to pass through. Not as light as a belt drive but cheap and way lighter than factory Apex setup.
 

Attachments