Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,487 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
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.
What does the 09 mxz 1200 and gsx /renagade have for springs and pinsand cam are the the same in 2010?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top