Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,566 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Everyone with the 06 models, how is the roller working? Is it snappier acceleration, backshift?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
YamaDooPolCat said:
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
yamaplcat- WHAT are you talking about???? the primary has the rollers with weighted pins...and the secondary is under preload at all times....and the analogy of "shocks on a car" and the "weighted mass geverner" (???) is stupid.....the new roller RER is the best secondary SKI-DOO has ever made....shows more track hp, backshifts as good as a TEAM and is easy to tune...I have one on my own sled (tried HL, TSS-98, TSS-04)......BJ
 

·
www.kalcoinspections.com
Joined
·
3,186 Posts
BIG JOHN said:
YamaDooPolCat said:
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
yamaplcat- WHAT are you talking about???? the primary has the rollers with weighted pins...and the secondary is under preload at all times....and the analogy of "shocks on a car" and the "weighted mass geverner" (???) is stupid.....the new roller RER is the best secondary SKI-DOO has ever made....shows more track hp, backshifts as good as a TEAM and is easy to tune...I have one on my own sled (tried HL, TSS-98, TSS-04)......BJ
[snapback]687489[/snapback]​
Good to hear BJ. Hey, what kind of mpg do you get on your 840 kit? Off season upgrade depending on what comes out for 07.
 

·
Descending doooowwwwnnnnn
Joined
·
3,717 Posts
BIG JOHN said:
YamaDooPolCat said:
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
yamaplcat- WHAT are you talking about???? the primary has the rollers with weighted pins...and the secondary is under preload at all times....and the analogy of "shocks on a car" and the "weighted mass geverner" (???) is stupid.....the new roller RER is the best secondary SKI-DOO has ever made....shows more track hp, backshifts as good as a TEAM and is easy to tune...I have one on my own sled (tried HL, TSS-98, TSS-04)......BJ
[snapback]687489[/snapback]​
thats funny bj
....dont forget his "opinon" on gearing that 24-45 was good for a summit...then complained of belt heat,gas mileage and performance...
 

·
Metalhead
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
What the heck is a [spring balance torque transfer system] ?????

boing boing?

Umm, well, I do think you are genuine serious believing what you say and I disagree!

If you can explain that [spring balance torque transfer system] then you must understand it, and im not getting a *fuzzy feeling* from your description there...

-----------------------------------------------------------

I really like the Doo roller secondary, it works just as good as my button secondary clutch kits.....Im still up in the air with the helix, im on my 6th custom jobby but I think the one I get coming up this week will hit-the-number so we can use the stock secondary spring.

Dalton has been slow getting me my custom stuff as they can only run 2 shifts over there in the cnc center....Dale's trying his hardest to keep up to me and help me out fitting me in between orders....
...which is good! My hat's off to Dalton for some beotchin helixes. w00t!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
YamaDooPolCat said:
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
Fast, I need somebody to explain something to me now. Just *%@ is [spring balance torque transfer system.] and how does poor shocks on any vehicle have any relation to spring action/forces in a CV clutch system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
YamaDooPolCat said:
PootoDoo said:
diabolic said:
it seems to come out of the hole better, 05revs are killing me mid and topend, something must be wrong with it
[snapback]687117[/snapback]​
Both mine and a buddys have had stuck rollers, then they wear a flat spot on them and are useless. Mine seems to be hanging up a little again, sled will be at the dealers tomorrow for the engine so they'll check it then.
[snapback]687424[/snapback]​
I was considering a Doo roller, but the basic problem remains in that Doo uses a spring balance torque transfer system. Anyone that has driven a vehicle with poor shocks knows how inportant it is to control and dampen spring bounce. The springs balance and rebound in doo clutches has no damping other than the little weights in the rollers. Not good enough. Boing..Boing

Until Doo folows the other clutch systems, which use a weighted mass govenor over spring, a doo roller is just feel good decoration.
[snapback]687451[/snapback]​
Ahhh, OK!.....Now I understand.....Your on drugs and your hamster wheel is starting to smoke!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
Dynamo^Joe said:
What the heck is a [spring balance torque transfer system] ?????

boing boing?

Umm, well, I do think you are genuine serious believing what you say and I disagree!

If you can explain that [spring balance torque transfer system] then you must understand it, and im not getting a *fuzzy feeling* from your description there...

-----------------------------------------------------------

I really like the Doo roller secondary, it works just as good as my button secondary clutch kits.....Im still up in the air with the helix, im on my 6th custom jobby but I think the one I get coming up this week will hit-the-number so we can use the stock secondary spring.

[snapback]687716[/snapback]​
Hello Joe

The TRA spring balance system is fundamentally different from the other manufactors on torque transfer. I am comfortable tuning the mass driven systems, but the skidoo system of balancing spring rates to make it hook up is so goofy. I see some on this page are not comfortable with me laughing at their sacred goat, but the mass balance clutches of Artic Cat, Polaris and Yamaha are more effective and efficient. There has to be a reason the Skidoo TRA will not push high gears and no one seems to look into it, don't you find that odd?

Perhaps that inquisitive person is me. I AWALYS ran high gears in the mountains, and people think it can't done. I am very experience with the subject, and it can be done very well thank-you. I did it for twelve years in a very competive group, and with the smallest engine in that group.

The TRA just can't handle the torque transfer load and I wondered why. It can only be the difference between the high-mass centifical clutches like Poo and the low mass high spring load in the TRA. What else can it be. I'm using even more Rotax power in the same mountains. And screaming around in low gear and using twice the gas.

I used to run 21/35 on 9's and now I have to run 21/45 on 9's. You do the math, and find something besides the change in clutches. I went up 35 HP and down in gears? Who would not be curious? And disappointed. What a waste of power, people don't seem to understand the power band I have seen that should come out of the track from this engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
[/quote]

Hello Joe

The TRA spring balance system is fundamentally different from the other manufactors on torque transfer. I am comfortable tuning the mass driven systems, but the skidoo system of balancing spring rates to make it hook up is so goofy. I see some on this page are not comfortable with me laughing at their sacred goat, but the mass balance clutches of Artic Cat, Polaris and Yamaha are more effective and efficient. There has to be a reason the Skidoo TRA will not push high gears and no one seems to look into it, don't you find that odd?

Perhaps that inquisitive person is me. I AWALYS ran high gears in the mountains, and people think it can't done. I am very experience with the subject, and it can be done very well thank-you. I did it for twelve years in a very competive group, and with the smallest engine in that group.

The TRA just can't handle the torque transfer load and I wondered why. It can only be the difference between the high-mass centifical clutches like Poo and the low mass high spring load in the TRA. What else can it be. I'm using even more Rotax power in the same mountains. And screaming around in low gear and using twice the gas.

I used to run 21/35 on 9's and now I have to run 21/45 on 9's. You do the math, and find something besides the change in clutches. I went up 35 HP and down in gears? Who would not be curious? And disappointed. What a waste of power, people don't seem to understand the power band I have seen that should come out of the track from this engine.
[snapback]687947[/snapback]​
[/quote] end

I think what you have to look at with the TRA is total weight of arm and pin is equal to similar masses as the other clutches. I believe the topic was on the secondary not the primary but Still this can lead to great discussions. I personally find the push of the TRA to be great. Tra has numerous tuning functions which can be a hinderince for someone not dicaplined to change one thing at a time. (general Statement)
The newer TRAs which have shorter arms have changed this clutch dramatically IMO as well.


Quote
Perhaps that inquisitive person is me. I AWALYS ran high gears in the mountains, and people think it can't done. I am very experience with the subject, and it can be done very well thank-you. I did it for twelve years in a very competive group, and with the smallest engine in that group.
Quote:end

Its the people who say it can't done that will never move forward.

As for the Roller, at this point only using stock parts, I find it lacking, however, with the developement of new helixs this year. This should change.
 

·
Metalhead
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
Hello Joe

The TRA spring balance system is fundamentally different from the other manufactors on torque transfer. I am comfortable tuning the mass driven systems, but the skidoo system of balancing spring rates to make it hook up is so goofy. I see some on this page are not comfortable with me laughing at their sacred goat, but the mass balance clutches of Artic Cat, Polaris and Yamaha are more effective and efficient. There has to be a reason the Skidoo TRA will not push high gears and no one seems to look into it, don't you find that odd?

Perhaps that inquisitive person is me. I AWALYS ran high gears in the mountains, and people think it can't done. I am very experience with the subject, and it can be done very well thank-you. I did it for twelve years in a very competive group, and with the smallest engine in that group.

The TRA just can't handle the torque transfer load and I wondered why. It can only be the difference between the high-mass centifical clutches like Poo and the low mass high spring load in the TRA. What else can it be. I'm using even more Rotax power in the same mountains. And screaming around in low gear and using twice the gas.

I used to run 21/35 on 9's and now I have to run 21/45 on 9's. You do the math, and find something besides the change in clutches. I went up 35 HP and down in gears? Who would not be curious? And disappointed. What a waste of power, people don't seem to understand the power band I have seen that should come out of the track from this engine.
Hi YDPC:
I was not making fun of you or make light of your discussion.
I don't understand your description of something you type there.

After reading, I can only review in my mind of the other brands and their clutches.
Pol/Yam/Cat use a flyweight that has shape and profile in one.
Doo uses a flyweight and stationary shaped ramp.
Cat hex clutches use a flyweight and stationary shaped ramp.

All use torsion spring secondary.
Pol and Doo use compression spring secondary.

They all have i]Pressure lever i]primary spring to resist the force of the pressure lever.
iii]helical screw cam to apply sheave force against the drive belt under load iv]torsion or compresssion spring to apply sheave force when at rest and belt has no load.

They all follow a generic idea generalized from particular instance however have their own personal shape.
They all follow the same concept just have different looks.

YDPC]...There has to be a reason the Skidoo TRA will not push high gears and no one seems to look into it, don't you find that odd?
Joe]...I can only begin to discuss this by noting the variations between brands/models.

Many Doo models run Larger diameter drive sprocket than Pol/Cat. Doo runs drivers that are 11% larger in diameter.
21:40 Pol with 7" driver is same as a 20:43 Doo with 8" driver.
...both will produce 1:1 at same mph at the same rpms. For using gear ratio numbers as reference then yest the 21:40 Pol/Cat would look to be higher but its the mph per rpms at 1:1 that count.

YDPC]...I used to run 21/35 on 9's and now I have to run 21/45 on 9's. You do the math,
Joe]...Noooo, you do the math. All these sleds you've run, get your tape measure out and start to measure the diameter of the clutches on each brand.
Example...You are dealing with a secondary on TRA III that is approx 10mm's smaller diameter than TRA II and nearly an inch smaller than other brand secondary. The TRA III primary is 10mm smaller diameter than a TRA II. Now you have variable sheave angle to which I would like to shake the hand of the gent who thought that one up, absolute brilliant mind MHO. That secondary is the most exciting clutch i've got to play with to date. The 10 tooth driver diameter there is such a capacity to gear lower now and maintain same peak mph. There is increased capacity for cooling because the belt can run across more sheave area with lower gear ratio and larger driver diameter; is incredible. My opinion, this type of clutch is little more demanding on "correct flyweight" to promote highest cooling efficiency, yet is a gem to tune.

I can introduce you to some F7 owners and an M owner who would say otherwise regarding efficient clutches regarding the damage that has been inflicted to their sleds cosmetics and structure after several belts have blown. Why do they blow belts constantly?

In the end....
I find it is very difficult to address and answer to your comments because I don't understand your definition of:
i]mass driven systems
ii]mass balance clutches
...there is no explanation "why" that Pol/Cat/Yam are more efficient other than you say "they are" but still found no one who looked into it.

As far as clutches being balanced, hmm....
The primary clutch is a governor however I would not consider it as a governor in the clutch system.
The primary clutch provides a load with a certain shape to it.
The ground has resistance and certain shapes to it.
The secondary measures the difference between the input load from the engine and resistance from the ground.....the secondary balances the load from engine vs ground. I don't see a balance between the primary and secondary, the secondary is the fulcrum point between two loads.

If you could explain and define the terms you mention, i might be able to see where you are coming from. I find what I just wrote above did not answer anything, was rather more of comments to something I did not address.

Regards
Joey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
Interesting points you raise there Joe. I just got back from work and have been thinking about this all day.

Eliminating variations is the surest way to compare, and both the new and old sleds have 9 tooth. The reason I bought the REV was because it was the first factory sled to come close to my home built sled I had been riding for the past twelve years. The REV is an excellent ride but I feel like I am starting over getting the power to the track. It took me two years to dial in the old sled, mostly engine dyno work. I know it takes time to understand the details and tuning tricks, but so far the TRA stuff appears to be a design cripple.

Like you, I use large changes to find the design limits. Pretty disappointed in the band width these clutches can handle.

Have to go measure the OD on some clutches - talk to you later.

YDPC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
Dynamo^Joe said:
Many Doo models run Larger diameter drive sprocket than Pol/Cat. Doo runs drivers that are 11% larger in diameter.
21:40 Pol with 7" driver is same as a 20:43 Doo with 8" driver.
...both will produce 1:1 at same mph at the same rpms. For using gear ratio numbers as reference then yest the 21:40 Pol/Cat would look to be higher but its the mph per rpms at 1:1 that count.

Joe]...Noooo, you do the math. All these sleds you've run, get your tape measure out and start to measure the diameter of the clutches on each brand.
Example...You are dealing with a secondary on TRA III that is approx 10mm's smaller diameter than TRA II and nearly an inch smaller than other brand secondary. The TRA III primary is 10mm smaller diameter than a TRA II. Now you have variable sheave angle to which I would like to shake the hand of the gent who thought that one up, absolute brilliant mind MHO. That secondary is the most exciting clutch i've got to play with to date. The 10 tooth driver diameter there is such a capacity to gear lower now and maintain same peak mph. There is increased capacity for cooling because the belt can run across more sheave area with lower gear ratio and larger driver diameter; is incredible. My opinion, this type of clutch is little more demanding on "correct flyweight" to promote highest cooling efficiency, yet is a gem to tune.

Regards
Joey
[snapback]688406[/snapback]​
Excellent post Joe, but it's not there yet.

I just measured the clutches I have laying around and here it is -

TRA primary 21 dia.
Comet primary 20.5 dia.
Artco primary 20 dia.
Polaris primary 20.5 dia.

TRA secondary 27.4 dia
Arctic Cat secondary 27 dia.
Polaris secondary 27.4 dia

Some of these clutches are still on sleds so the measure is a little rough, but these measurements do not indicate any great gross size differences between brands. The OD is a good indication of where the belt might ride, if the primary is spaced properly to lift the belt out of the shives. But it is clear the clutches are very close in OD as far as the belt is concerned.

No, it is not the size of clutches, but Joe you had me thinking for sure.

It is back to the internals of the different clutches, and what makes them work. Oh, there is the matter of the Doo clutches being the closest together in the industry. I would not discount this fact is detrimental, but I would have the build a sled to run a short belt to be sure.

Don't worry about the other varibles you mention which are not a factor in this experiment, such as 7's and 8 tooth spockets and what other sleds might run. Kind of muddles things up a bit. The sleds we are comparing all run 9's, the clutches are all about the same size, they all go the same places. The mystery is why a 110 HP was a runaway success with 21/35, why the factory Poo 155 HP can run 21/39, and why the excellent 145 HP 800HO can't run anything higher than 21/45? I'm doing the math and it don't add up.

Years ago I was told to throw the TRA under the bench, but I was hoping that with the success of the REV platform that the TRA had been improved. All I can say is thank heaven for guys like yourself that have squeezed the most out of what little capacity the TRA has. Problem is I'm used to more than what you have managed to get out of the TRA.

Kragar100 has a point about considering the whole mobile arm in the TRA when talking about weight. Unfortunately the weight in the design of the TRA arms loses force as the weight spins out to fight the ramp. Other designs easily increases pressure exponentially as they walk out the rollers. The TRA worked great for the early sleds, but it is time SkiDoo moved on to a better clutch principle to match up with the leading edge chassis design they came up with.

The problem with plastic rollers in the Doo roller was less of a problem in the Arctic Cat roller as the spring pressure was less. But the Cat plastic roller still flattened out, so I installed steel cage needle bearings and ran it without touching it for ten years. Maybe this can be done in the Doo roller, I don't have one to look at yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
I think the question was, how's the new Doo roller secondary clutch panning out, good bad or better than, i'm interested too because I will be purchasing a 07 600SDI X and I think all Xs come with this roller secondary.

Anyone else?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
YDPC- I have been reading this...and still wonder...JUST how good did a 110 hp sled with 21/35 go in the mtns??? what track?? VS what iron?? since I have been riding outwest since 1982...I am skeptical.

Most of the new REV's are running a 10 tooth driver (unless you changed it, or its a 159 sled or is the new 2006 X model) so 19/45 gear X 11% equals a 2.10-1 ratio (= to 9 tooths) and it has a 60+ lb track it has to turn along with button RER that is nothing to write home about (unless Joe helps ya out..
)..PLUS factory moly rings that crap there pants in 200-300 miles...THESE are the problems the TRA has to deal with.

As for shift force....while climbing a mountain... you get roughly 35-45 mph track speed...just how far do you think the clutch is shifted out??? the TRA has the stongest shift force in the first half (vs the flyweight clutches) of the clutch... and I am fully aware of the "lack" of shift force in the upper ratios of this clutch.

Magnesium arms, 21 grams pin weight and softer springs with the right ramp can work VERY well in the older TRA BTW.

I have personally swapped the DOO clutches for POO clutches on a couple different machines...and didnt get any "revelation" of missing track HP thats for sure....I just needed to run a heavy shoulderd weight and quick shifting multi angle cam to get out of the crappy part of the clutches up to the good part....I would rather have the TRA and fix the top end pull personally (is 125 mph in qtr mile with a 670 Mach 1X good??)....look at any track dyno numbers...the TRA holds its own vs any combo out there..IMHO.

I have noticed the POO guys running 19/42 or 20/43 gearing with there RMK's with success...havent heard ONE performance MOUNTAIN shop gearing anything UP much less to a 1.66 ratio..... BTW...I had a 1988 SKS 650 and I regeared it to 19/39 with a 133/.75 "full block track" and made the "locals" in YELLOWSTONE in the winter of 1989 wonder..."what the heck is the flatlander doing kicking our butts???"

So in closing....I played the gear game for a long time...and since pretty much everyone 'cept yourself is in the 2.0-1 or lower ratio for the mountains..I would say ya might be missing the boat a touch...BJ

Just a little more info...in 1997 my '92 Mach 1X ran a 10.40 at 125 mph in a qtr. mile.....with the factory clutches and a 26/38 gear.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
As for gas mileage with my 840HO...its no mileage king..."gotta feed the horses"...but its not bad compared to some stock sleds......

As for the roller RER...dont see any problems...short of std. manufacture 2% failure rate...BJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
BIG JOHN said:
YDPC- I have been reading this...and still wonder...JUST how good did a 110 hp sled with 21/35 go in the mtns??? what track?? VS what iron?? since I have been riding outwest since 1982...I am skeptical.

**** We got a 617 to turn 110 HP on the water dyno. I ran against any 600 Polaris and 700 Yamaha's with great success. We actually made two of these engines. The turbo version ran really well but the internal seal into the through shaft cavity was a problem. ****

Most of the new REV's are running a 10 tooth driver (unless you changed it, or its a 159 sled or is the new 2006 X model) so 19/45 gear X 11% equals a 2.10-1 ratio (= to 9 tooths) and it has a 60+ lb track it has to turn along with button RER that is nothing to write home about (unless Joe helps ya out..
)..PLUS factory moly rings that crap there pants in 200-300 miles...THESE are the problems the TRA has to deal with.

*** Sorry Big John, if you read the posts you would see it is a 9 tooth extrovert, I opened the windows and deuce holed the track. The moly rings have been replaced and she is holding 150/150 on the compression tests now. All the other secondary clutches started out with buttons, but the roller is so smooooth. ****

As for shift force....while climbing a mountain... you get roughly 35-45 mph track speed...just how far do you think the clutch is shifted out??? the TRA has the stongest shift force in the first half (vs the flyweight clutches) of the clutch... and I am fully aware of the "lack" of shift force in the upper ratios of this clutch.

**** Big John, I know what is said about the TRA having the jam in the first half of the shift out, I was counting on it. If this was true then the high ratio gears like 21/39 would work. As the sled climbs and shifts back, the grip force would have been in the right spot, right? But since no primary works in isolation (as Joe correctly points out), the high spring pressures start to come into play as the springs jockey against each other. The result is a mess. I saw speeds wildly fluctuating between 60 and 80 km as the clutches fought each other under various loads spikes while climbing. Under these conditions the engine was horsed around so badly the people listening at the bottom thought I was letting off the throttle. ****

Magnesium arms, 21 grams pin weight and softer springs with the right ramp can work VERY well in the older TRA BTW.

*** I don't really care about how an older TRA ran. The TRA I have in the 2004 Summit 800HO is the one I am interested in. ****

I have personally swapped the DOO clutches for POO clutches on a couple different machines...and didnt get any "revelation" of missing track HP thats for sure....I just needed to run a heavy shoulderd weight and quick shifting multi angle cam to get out of the crappy part of the clutches up to the good part....I would rather have the TRA and fix the top end pull personally (is 125 mph in qtr mile with a 670 Mach 1X good??)....look at any track dyno numbers...the TRA holds its own vs any combo out there..IMHO.

**** Big John, I don't know if 125 mph is good in a quarter mile. Is it? I think the problem is we are operating in different worlds here, and hardly talking about the same thng. I'll take your word for it that the TRA works good in controlled conditions, if you will take my word that the TRA goes to hell under funky load spikes.****

I have noticed the POO guys running 19/42 or 20/43 gearing with there RMK's with success...havent heard ONE performance MOUNTAIN shop gearing anything UP much less to a 1.66 ratio..... BTW...I had a 1988 SKS 650 and I regeared it to 19/39 with a 133/.75 "full block track" and made the "locals" in YELLOWSTONE in the winter of 1989 wonder..."what the heck is the flatlander doing kicking our butts???"

*** We called them rumble tracks. In the mod curcuit today the target is 1.8 ***

So in closing....I played the gear game for a long time...and since pretty much everyone 'cept yourself is in the 2.0-1 or lower ratio for the mountains..I would say ya might be missing the boat a touch...BJ

**** Hey I with you on this. I never could convince anyone to gear up. They would say it sure works good, but they always thought it was the moly tubing and the rider. It was a blast.****

Just a little more info...in 1997 my '92 Mach 1X ran a 10.40 at 125 mph in a qtr. mile.....with the factory clutches and a 26/38 gear.

****Sorry, not interested in flat land stuff, just getting better mileage and ripping up one more chute! ***

[snapback]689510[/snapback]​
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top