262 replies to this topic

[TundraManDan]

I would like to see the revival of a lightweight "get unstuck friendly" machine. Thoughts are replacement of the low end Tundra with a single cylindar ACE and radiator only - no tunnel coolers. Also, a 144x16 track, with 10" skis as standard. Keep the dry weight under 440 lbs. If the mechanical reverse is too heavy, then forget that. We need some way of emergency starting it manually like most of the older Honda 4-strokes - even if you have to lift the hood and kick start. 30 HP is OK as long as it has more torque than the 300F. The ski stance would remain at 32" or less.

Or,

A 16x137 track but the weight under 400 lbs.


Dan

[irondoo]

That would be a good machine. I think that on the pogos or the ski spindles, there should
be an offset that can be reversed, to change the stance from 32" to something like 39".
I envision something like the spindle has a spline at the top end, keyed so the arm
fits only two ways, no possibility of getting one tooth off. The steering rod is
disconnected, the spindle turned 180 degrees so the knuckle at the bottom of the
spindle now faces outwards, the arm rekeyed on the spindle spline, and the rod
reattached. The ski would obviously have to be reattached. That would take just
a few extra minutes to do over the present Summit system of repositioning the ski
bushing, which only changes the stance a small amount.

With this mod, which would have basically a zero weight penalty, the machine can be
repurposed. I myself have used my Tundra 300F both ways, wide stance and narrow
stance. Both have their time and place.

With the half-ACE, the weight would be about 150 pounds less than the current LT,
so the torque and low end performance should be comparable with the right gearing.

At 400 pounds, reverse would be very, very nice. I always thought that a bit of
creative work on the secondary clutch could incorporate the reverse there (using
sun and planetary gearing), avoiding the chain case but having a low-speed reverse,
which is all that is needed.

A good option, and one that would save weight, is to have the fuel tank in two
parts. 5 gallons towards the front of the seat, like now, but only barely
extending back under the seat. A second 5 gallon tank to extend it to the back.
For many trips, with a 300 half-ACE, the 5-gal would be plenty and it would
save having 30 to 40 pounds of gas and tank. There would be an under-the-seat
storage that could be replaced with the secondary tank. Not a 30 second job,
but a 5-minute job.

I am not so sure about manual start for emergencies. My position has been that
"failure to turn over" is only a small fraction of the modes of possible ACE
failure, where on a 2-stroke it is a large part. But, yeah, if it is no trouble
to implement, go ahead. It might not make the machine any more able to return
from the boonies, but it sure would give peace of mind, and peace of mind SELLS
machines. Look how many people here have whined and whined about this.

Dealers won't like this suggestion, but I sure wish that the SkiDoo ACE's and
the proposed half-ACE, would come out with OBD-2 compliant ECU's.

For the front, I would love the idea of 10" wide skis, and the Pogo front end
is wonderful in SkiDoo's current incantation.

I would a "high-idle" switch or pusbutton so the machine can be left to idle fast
for extended period of time: to recharge a battery, or keep some accessory
operational. right now, the machine idles down to the point there is no extra
juice except to keep the motor running.

Tunnel coolers could indeed be eliminated. Here is where I get a bit scared,
if that fan motor goes, or has some electrical casualty, then that is going to
bring the machine to a halt. I think something can be done to have a small
snow cooler up front where the track turns. It would get the snow the track
brings around; the half-ACE would not require much and would give long periods
of rest to the fan motor.

Storage up front in the engine compartment is a must, like on the old Tundra II's.
I like SkiDoo's plastic cowlings. They look cheesy, etc., but the fact is they
seldom break, and when they do its not the whole thing, but just a part. I think
their present offerings is a bit counterintuitive to open, and fiddly. How about
two cheek pieces that you fiddle with, and the top just hinges and straps down
with no fiddling? Kinda like your 2006 and up Tundra, but hinged better, with
better rubber hold downs?

With this lower power, the suspension could be lightened up, a one ply track
would work, and a bit of tunnel options could have a 120", 137", 144" and maybe
a 154" track. Just tunnel extension (sheet metal) and different rails. With
a half-ACE, there may not be enough power for a 154, but that remains to be
seen. The present 154" LT has an excess of power now. Unless you want to go
at 80 mph or more, in which case neither the half-ACE nor the Pair-of-ACE motor
will suit you.

That reminds me of the number one question asked by newbies that come to this forum.
Regarding the 300, and later the ACE: How fast does it go? Can you put a bigger
motor in it? Can I ride double with my wife, a kid, and a dog? Is it tippy?

Same old questions, which merely shows that they want to have the price of the
old 300 freestyle, with the performance of a 550 or 600. SkiDoo killed that
entire RF series by offering the 550 motor. Look now, the only ones of those
machiens, Freestyle and Tundra (back country) are the 300F's The 550 is too
much power for the handling and safety, and they are hard-to-sell-dogs. But the
little 300's are so nice, light and zippy they sell well. SkiDoo killed its own
market there by offering the 550 motor for the RF series. If they come out with
a half-ACE motor like you propose, then offering a full-ACE would mean that
they have to strengthen the suspension, sheet metal, front end, etc., so the
machine would be heavier, clumsier, etc. and would defeat the purpose. But I
am sure the Marketing Droids would not agree with this.

They'll end up with people getting a half-ACE and whining about the pogo, the
narrow stance and the low power, when what they really needed was a different
machine for THEIR riding style.

Yeah, a rig like this, Dan, would take the work/low end market. No other
manufacturer has anything close. Women, speceially smaller, lighter ones, and
working stiffs, and those that want to poke around the ravines and the
snarlies and don't care to go over 30 - 35, would buy them in droves. It would
be a good offering in a 120 track for young teens or preteens learning to
ride in, without the parents worrying that their kid is out there in an 800R
trying to race the other kids with 800R's. A small, light machine, would put
the kind in the tight-maneuvering scene, or "go exploring with dad" thing.
It might even be all you need to run figure-8's on a groomed trail until you
are bored to stupefaction.

[akmunsell]

One thing, please get rid of the tether/kill switch setup and go back to a simple key. The setup is just to complicated and one more thing to go wrong.

[N of 60]

One thing, please get rid of the tether/kill switch setup and go back to a simple key. The setup is just to complicated and one more thing to go wrong.

Whats complicated about sticking a concave thingy over a convex thingy to help prevent theft and provide a little safety? Yes they may take a little wiggling some times to be accepted on the 1st start. Gotta warm up the engine anyway. This may be a good thing and detour my boys on an uninvited 1st try when I am not home. Has the DESS system been known to completley fail and leave a person stranded?

[Fishin_Chip]

That would be a good machine. I think that on the pogos or the ski spindles, there should
be an offset that can be reversed, to change the stance from 32" to something like 39".
I envision something like the spindle has a spline at the top end, keyed so the arm
fits only two ways, no possibility of getting one tooth off. The steering rod is
disconnected, the spindle turned 180 degrees so the knuckle at the bottom of the
spindle now faces outwards, the arm rekeyed on the spindle spline, and the rod
reattached. The ski would obviously have to be reattached. That would take just
a few extra minutes to do over the present Summit system of repositioning the ski
bushing, which only changes the stance a small amount.

With this mod, which would have basically a zero weight penalty, the machine can be
repurposed. I myself have used my Tundra 300F both ways, wide stance and narrow
stance. Both have their time and place.

I think that is an awesome idea. An even simpler approach to changing the stance would be to swap ski and offset from left to right and vise-versa. One bolt and done.

A 35 hp, 350 lb, 137" go anywhere machine, wouldn't need reverse at that weight, way too practical to ever see one. Kind of like making a 35 mpg pickup truck instead of one that has 400 hp. The people who make those kinds of decisions don't see the world that way.

Bigger! Badder! more $!

End of story!

[irondoo]

Whats complicated about sticking a concave thingy over a convex thingy to help prevent theft and provide a little safety? Yes they may take a little wiggling some times to be accepted on the 1st start. Gotta warm up the engine anyway. This may be a good thing and detour my boys on an uninvited 1st try when I am not home. Has the DESS system been known to completley fail and leave a person stranded?

Personally I've never had trouble that way. But a friend of mine, Hugh, had one that wouldn't turn on the machine. Turned out it was too stiff in
the cold. A hair dryer soon set it right. But about five of us tried and tried, till the dryer came out.

The way to do it would be for the machine to come out with the DESS. Then, you take it to the dealer, and he can hook his computer to it
and bypass it. Later on, if DESS is desired, pay the dealer and it works again.

The problem with that approach is that the DESS is ALSO a tether switch. Some people, many snowmachine events, and maybe some jurisdictions,
require a tether. But, if the dealer offers the option ($ 50 dollars a pop ), guys like you and me could take advantage of it. Personally,
I don't want DESS, but if I lived in town I would have it. In my case, I put a dab of dielectric compound in there, and jammed that sucker
in and tied the tether to the handlebar. That was on day two of having my LT, and it's never been off. Had to wiggle it couple of times,
is all.

I think the DESS is the first system that is theft proof, and it has its place ... in some places and for some owners.

[idaho_h2o]

Hey TMD,
Have you thought about a snowbike? I have read your posts where you talk about a trials bike like snowmachine, maybe a timbersled mountain horse with whatever bike you have now would be the answer. I haven't seen one in person yet, but from watching youtube videos its seems these things put anything else to shame in steep, tight, gnarly terrain. Not the answer for the utility end of the equation but maybe perfect for the person wanting a go anywhere machine, especially solo, as the snowbikes are under 300 lbs.

[irondoo]

It's a young man's sport. Us old, fat, ungainly geezers will surely break bones
in one of those! But looks like *fun*.

[TundraManDan]

Hey TMD,
Have you thought about a snowbike? I have read your posts where you talk about a trials bike like snowmachine, maybe a timbersled mountain horse with whatever bike you have now would be the answer. I haven't seen one in person yet, but from watching youtube videos its seems these things put anything else to shame in steep, tight, gnarly terrain. Not the answer for the utility end of the equation but maybe perfect for the person wanting a go anywhere machine, especially solo, as the snowbikes are under 300 lbs.

It would be fun to try one sometime. The pictures that I have seen make me wonder if they have enough flotation for really soft powder. I guess it would depend on the snow conditions.


Snow Bikes are cool looking . . . http://www.2moto.com....com/index.html

This is a neat video giving you an idea of the performance. It looks like they handle well but lack floatation, yet would be suberb on side hills . . .




Dan

[TundraManDan]

Irondoo - very good points as usual.


The offset is a good idea - my Daughter's Bravo has that feature and I reversed the spindles to make the ski stance narrow.

Your comments on the hood are the same thoughts that I had. The RF 3 piece was simpler and you could easily open it all up. Hood replacement cost for the RF should be cheaper than the older Tundras with one piece hoods. When I looked at the Tundra ACE the hood assembly seemed like a pretty strange setup.

On the cooling I fail to understand why my XR650L Honda Single 4-stroke (650cc) does just fine with air cooling - no fan and no liquid and yet a snowmobile4-stroke in colder temps has to have fan, radiator, and more to stay cool.

A light 1-ply track for sure - I agree.

And, on the marketing you are right - targeted at a small segment of users but so is the Tundra and Skandics if you go by the number of posts in this forum.

I think how popular it would be would depend on how light, simple, reliable and economical it can be but with some outstanding performance attributes. When the little Elan came out in 71 it was to be a kid's machine but adults took it over because it floated better than anything else at the time. It was a unique and enjoyable trail breaker. Same goes for the big brother 250/277 Tundra.

Yes - pogos for sure.

There will be people who would purchase one and then don't like it but that would be mainly due to inexperience and not knowing what they really want.

Maybe a 7 gallon gas tank like the 94 Tundra has with the 4-stroke mileage

The biggest problem is coming up with a performance machine (gained mostly by the weight factor and the single cyl. 4-stroke) that has an economical pricetag. That was also an attribute of Elan's and early Tundra's.

If price, performance, and reliability come out right it could sell well.

However I read the 2013 wants in American Snowmobilier and all they want is more power - bigger ace, turbocharger, etc.

Dan

[irondoo]

The cooling question is easy. A motorcycle basically is stopped and idling, and free
air keeps it cool. Just about any power above idle and its going 20 mph with a lot
less resistance than snow on a snowmachine. At 20 mph, with a much more open-to-the-air
motor, it stays cool. Give it more power, and you are going 50mph + with a real
blast of air.

A snowmachine can need significantly more power just going 0-20 and the motor is
more enclosed.

Also, it is harder to get an economical motor with air cooling. In an air cooled
motor, any deficiency in cooling is taken care of by adding fuel to the mixture.
This is not EPA friendly, nor economical. And the operating temperature of an
air cooled motor runs about 100 to 150 warmer than a liquid.

I think liquid is the way to go, but perhaps not with ethylene glycol. I think
something like oil would be better. I've seen a lot of smaller diesel engines that
have oil circulating through a radiator and fan. It is mostly monolithic; ie, no
hoses, it just all bolts together. But I've seen it with hoses as well.

The advantage of oil is that it does not expand and boil like water based cooling
does; the pressures can be lower even if the engine runs hotter. Since the water
operates without a state change (boil), it has lower cooling capacity than oil.
So, an oil cooled system could be smaller, lighter, have a wider operating range.
If integrated with the engine's lube system, a single pump does the work, so no
need for a water pump. There are some drawbacks, but to me makes sense.

[TundraManDan]

The cooling question is easy. A motorcycle basically is stopped and idling, and free
air keeps it cool. Just about any power above idle and its going 20 mph with a lot
less resistance than snow on a snowmachine. At 20 mph, with a much more open-to-the-air
motor, it stays cool. Give it more power, and you are going 50mph + with a real
blast of air.

A snowmachine can need significantly more power just going 0-20 and the motor is
more enclosed.

Also, it is harder to get an economical motor with air cooling. In an air cooled
motor, any deficiency in cooling is taken care of by adding fuel to the mixture.
This is not EPA friendly, nor economical. And the operating temperature of an
air cooled motor runs about 100 to 150 warmer than a liquid.

I think liquid is the way to go, but perhaps not with ethylene glycol. I think
something like oil would be better. I've seen a lot of smaller diesel engines that
have oil circulating through a radiator and fan. It is mostly monolithic; ie, no
hoses, it just all bolts together. But I've seen it with hoses as well.

The advantage of oil is that it does not expand and boil like water based cooling
does; the pressures can be lower even if the engine runs hotter. Since the water
operates without a state change (boil), it has lower cooling capacity than oil.
So, an oil cooled system could be smaller, lighter, have a wider operating range.
If integrated with the engine's lube system, a single pump does the work, so no
need for a water pump. There are some drawbacks, but to me makes sense.

Good rationale - I mainly don't like the ideal of tunnel coolers that ice up.

[ravinerat]

Storage, storage and maybe some storage. Enough to keep my visor plug in and some ice picks so they are always on my sled. couple of extra tools. Don't need a lot just a bit of storage.

RR

[TundraManDan]

Storage, storage and maybe some storage. Enough to keep my visor plug in and some ice picks so they are always on my sled. couple of extra tools. Don't need a lot just a bit of storage.

RR

Yes - storage is always a good thing - the little bit on my 06 Tundra is great. It also needs good lifting/pulling bumpers, small rack and toe hitch since it is a utility machine but somehow retain a light weight and also economical theme. Perhaps it should not be a Tundra but a re-designed Elan. If the weight were down enough even a 124"x16" track would be good but getting the weight down with a 4-stroke motor will be a major challenge as Irondoo points out. I always thought that Elans had a cool functional look to them. There are not any 124x16 tracks that I'm aware of but that is almost the same flotation as 136x15 with the advantage of being short. In any case I stick to my main theme of under 400 lbs dry, single cylinder 4-stroke, and enough flotation to be a significant performer for the cost - some unique advantages not found on bigger sleds - a new lightweight standard for the entry level utility sled market at a cost not to exceed $7000. When building a dirt bike companies know they need a single cylinder motor to keep it light and competitive.

Dan

[stevetundra]

I like the idea of lite and agile. My 06 is fun in the woods and can haul a serious amount of gear too. It doesn't need a bigger motor in my opinion. But, as with cars, it's bigger motors and more gadgets please. Look at what happened to the tundra. Like others have pointed out, I don't even consider the new sleds tundras (not to say they aren't nice sleds).

The niche that was interested in the tundra has been spit up by the bigger motors and such. The nitch that is left that just want a cheap, lite, and agile utility sled is not big enough to warrent any attention. Anyhow, I'm priced right out of ever replacing mine with a new one. Hopefully when mine dies, I'll find an 07-09 in somebody's garage...

Think Snow
Steve