09 1200 bouncing off the rev limiter - REV-XR / XS Chassis - 4-TEC 1200 Performance and Trail Models - DOOTalk Forums

Jump to content

 






Photo

09 1200 bouncing off the rev limiter


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
17 replies to this topic

#1 dooboy

dooboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 19 December 2009 - 10:51 PM

I bought a used 2009 1200 renegade, took it out today for the first drive. it seemed to0 work well but it was reving a strong 8400 to possible 8500 on clicker # 3, I think it was hitting the rev limiter, I dropped the clicker to #2, I have only tried it in the field by my house, it now goes to 8200 rpm's seems to pull much better than before.

This sled is completely stock, what RPM is everyone else running at, also anybody else need to be in clicker #2 and still pulling 8200 rpm?

Is this normal or is my clutcking or belt glazed, Etc?

#2 RENREV

RENREV

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 02:51 AM

I bought a used 2009 1200 renegade, took it out today for the first drive. it seemed to0 work well but it was reving a strong 8400 to possible 8500 on clicker # 3, I think it was hitting the rev limiter, I dropped the clicker to #2, I have only tried it in the field by my house, it now goes to 8200 rpm's seems to pull much better than before.

This sled is completely stock, what RPM is everyone else running at, also anybody else need to be in clicker #2 and still pulling 8200 rpm?

Is this normal or is my clutcking or belt glazed, Etc?

Ya just got in from a drive on my new 1200se and man it flies rev's 8000rpms on clicker #3and pulls hard all the way through.maybe we should hook up today and try them out.

#3 dobson

dobson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:29 AM

hey RENREV

how much snow you got up your way? i'm in Nova Scotia just past amherst

#4 dooboy

dooboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:49 AM

hey RENREV

how much snow you got up your way? i'm in Nova Scotia just past amherst



We have less than a foot in most places, northern Nb may have more

#5 BlueMax

BlueMax

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8487 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:55 AM

Running these engines to higher RPMs when there is no increase in horsepower, actually transfers less horsepower to the track. For each 100 RPM you rev above lets say 7900 RPM you lose 0.4 to 0.5% efficiency with these clutches. The 1200 makes about the same horsepower (+/- 1/2 HP) at the crank from 7900 to 8400 RPM. Running higher RPM actually nets in a 3 horsepower loss at the driveshaft.

#6 sls

sls

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 09:03 AM

Ya just got in from a drive on my new 1200se and man it flies rev's 8000rpms on clicker #3and pulls hard all the way through.maybe we should hook up today and try them out.


any mpg numbers yet

what air ride number u on

#7 KnappAttack

KnappAttack

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3488 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:35 AM

Running these engines to higher RPMs when there is no increase in horsepower, actually transfers less horsepower to the track. For each 100 RPM you rev above lets say 7900 RPM you lose 0.4 to 0.5% efficiency with these clutches. The 1200 makes about the same horsepower (+/- 1/2 HP) at the crank from 7900 to 8400 RPM. Running higher RPM actually nets in a 3 horsepower loss at the driveshaft.




Steve, I have not seen this from a four-stroke Yamaha, perhaps the Ski-Doo clutches are different but the higher we can RPM a four-stroke, even not increasing HP, the faster it goes in the field. I know what you are saying is theoretical and looks right on paper, but its not what I have found to be the case when running on snow at least with the Yamahas. My turbo XR1200 is proving also to be faster right up to the rev limiter. If I had my choice, it would be turning 9200-9500, not with a TRA more than likely though!
 

 


#8 BlueMax

BlueMax

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8487 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:01 PM

Steve, I have not seen this from a four-stroke Yamaha, perhaps the Ski-Doo clutches are different but the higher we can RPM a four-stroke, even not increasing HP, the faster it goes in the field. I know what you are saying is theoretical and looks right on paper, but its not what I have found to be the case when running on snow at least with the Yamahas. My turbo XR1200 is proving also to be faster right up to the rev limiter. If I had my choice, it would be turning 9200-9500, not with a TRA more than likely though!


Mike

I am not saying that it will not go faster. This is dependent on gearing and other issues. The Yamahas responded well to lowering the gear ratio. For instance, the Attack (lower ratio) gearing ran faster than the Apex. The 1200s are seeing higher speeds when gearing up from stock gearing. Your assuming you had ideal clutching at both RPMs. Your clutch setup running at 8400 may have a higher efficiency than for 7800 RPM. You also have 14 more HP at 8400 RPM versus 7800 RPM and the clutch effieciency loss relates to 6 HP hence, you net 8 HP. The efficiencies were developed by BRP through testing. The belt speed is what affects the efficiency of the CVT clutches. The belt is trying to pull out of the clutches and run in a perfect circle. The higher the belt speed the greater the force (increases by the square of the belt speed) trying to pull the belt out of the sheaves. The area of concern is on the secondary as the TRA is in overdrive and the primary has roughly 35% more belt/sheave contact area than the secondary. This is also where the belt is making the tightest bend at max rpm and sled speed. Engine RPM is not everything when looking at CVT belt speed. Here is an example of drive belt speed from my Mach Z.

The belt speed when in overdrive and engine running at 7800 RPM is roughly 186 MPH. Yet when I'm at 1:1 clutch ratio and the engine still turning 7800 RPM the belt speed is 168 MPH. Now if I gear my Mach to run the same speed at 1:1 ratio as I was running with overdrive (hence track losses are the same due to same speed), I will have more HP to the track due to less losses from the drive belt speed. I am just saying you have to be aware of drive belt speed. This is why small horsepower gains at slightly elevated RPMs do not show up in the field as would be expected. Now with turbos the HP gains are so large with increases in RPM that the losses are more than offset but they are still there.

#9 romeo

romeo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:52 PM

I bought a used 2009 1200 renegade, took it out today for the first drive. it seemed to0 work well but it was reving a strong 8400 to possible 8500 on clicker # 3, I think it was hitting the rev limiter, I dropped the clicker to #2, I have only tried it in the field by my house, it now goes to 8200 rpm's seems to pull much better than before.

This sled is completely stock, what RPM is everyone else running at, also anybody else need to be in clicker #2 and still pulling 8200 rpm?

Is this normal or is my clutcking or belt glazed, Etc?

Mine is running around 8300 most off the time, a bit less on hot day's maybe 8200. Clicker on 3 but i have a 15 inch track.

#10 dooboy

dooboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 04:05 PM

Mine is running around 8300 most off the time, a bit less on hot day's maybe 8200. Clicker on 3 but i have a 15 inch track.




Thanks for the repies. I rode 93 miles today after turning my clicker to #2, it seems to work better, pulls strong through the midrange and is reving 82-8300.

I still don't know why mine is turning higher RPM's than normal?

I am turning the same rpm on clicker #2 as most 1200's on clicker # 3, my brothers GTX 1200 rev's app 78 - 8000 on clicker # 3.

What gains are most people seeing from a clutch kit?

Are they changing cams?

2009 cam is different than 2010 cam ? why did they change?

Are 2010 sleds faster than 2009?
thanks

#11 billy007

billy007

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1189 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:47 PM

Thanks for the repies. I rode 93 miles today after turning my clicker to #2, it seems to work better, pulls strong through the midrange and is reving 82-8300.

I still don't know why mine is turning higher RPM's than normal?

I am turning the same rpm on clicker #2 as most 1200's on clicker # 3, my brothers GTX 1200 rev's app 78 - 8000 on clicker # 3.

What gains are most people seeing from a clutch kit?

Are they changing cams?

2009 cam is different than 2010 cam ? why did they change?

Are 2010 sleds faster than 2009?
thanks


Right on 2010 4 tec helix,s really back off helix front side and back side about 3 degrees to 4 degrees...thinking tooo many complaints about eng breaking ect.. i like the higher helix angles andd use em in our clutchkitts....
Both 2009 and 2010,s... Man this is all Funs tuff for sure.... Also 2010 spring wrap is wrapped tighter too....

we got spring wrap tester tools in stock...

Yeeee Haaaa all good stuff... www.howardsinc.net Billy Howard

#12 Pipeman

Pipeman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1134 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:20 PM

Thanks for the repies. I rode 93 miles today after turning my clicker to #2, it seems to work better, pulls strong through the midrange and is reving 82-8300.

I still don't know why mine is turning higher RPM's than normal?

I am turning the same rpm on clicker #2 as most 1200's on clicker # 3, my brothers GTX 1200 rev's app 78 - 8000 on clicker # 3.

What gains are most people seeing from a clutch kit?

Are they changing cams?

2009 cam is different than 2010 cam ? why did they change?

Are 2010 sleds faster than 2009?
thanks


How many miles are on each sled? I can tell you as you put miles on them they run stronger once you break 1500-2000miles they are able to pull more pin weight easily.

#13 RENREV

RENREV

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:22 PM

any mpg numbers yet

what air ride number u on

14.9 mpg over 91 mile run and i seem to like it soft #2

#14 RENREV

RENREV

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:31 PM

How many miles are on each sled? I can tell you as you put miles on them they run stronger once you break 1500-2000miles they are able to pull more pin weight easily.

What is the pin weight in a stock 1200se 2010 and are all 1200 running the same weight?

#15 BlueMax

BlueMax

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8487 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:46 PM

What is the pin weight in a stock 1200se 2010 and are all 1200 running the same weight?


The 2010 Expedition, GSXs, MXZs, and Renegades 1200s are all running 18.8 grams of pin weight. They are also running the same primary spring, secondary spring and helix except for the Expedition. The Expedition runs a 44-40 helix and the others are running a 47-40.