2014 Polaris Snowmobiles unveiled. First impressions?

[maxwell]

Another reason for a tensioner. When in forward motion all tension is on the back side of the belt. Making the front side of the belt loose. Which can cause it to skip and break off cogs. Even pressure on the front side if the belt will allow it to grip the pulleys better.

 

[kidder17]

Excellent description on why you feel a tensioner is required. All I was relating was my own experiences with this system. I will still contend that 97.5% of the failures in the field that have occured have been from improper break in. It has been well covered that break in for these belts is very important and if not done failures will happen as was experienced very early on this season. We are seeing very little to almost no posts, post Christmas, once the word got out on breaking in. I myself took a belt out 14 miles in- Why? Because I did not follow procedure, since breaking in the second belt there has been no looking back.


As too my personal experience, I have never had to carry a torque wrench or tools required to change out either a QD Belt or Gears, Chain....etc regardless of type of Drive system. Infact I personally do not know of anyone that would carry this equipment as part of their everyday riding gear. Do I check the bolt torque on those gears every so often? You bet I do, no different than I did in checking my chaincase adjuster on my Chaincase drive sleds.

It needs an idler pulley for the same reason that a chain in a chaincase uses a tensioner. The forces that are exerted on the belt as currently designed does not allow for expansion and contraction and the differences in speed that may be encountered between the jackshaft and driveshaft from use; ie, jumping, deep powder pulls, twisting of the chassis, etc. Yes, the belt is strong but without a tensioner the cogs can and will break off and cause premature breakage of the belt. A tensioner would also allow easier belt installation. Do you carry torque wrench's with you so you can torque the pullys back on when changing a belt? Those bolts break very easily if overtorqued and back out from undertorque. Its a great idea, just needs some refinements..... when you get 3000 miles on that sled, then come back and tell us your story. Engine will be gone before that anyway so its a mute point.
And I seriously doubt that belt as currently designed will outlast a chain in a chaincase. Just my observations from seeing pulleys fall off and belts break this year so far....But then, this is from guys who put hard , hard miles on their pro's.

 

[duck]

Excellent description on why you feel a tensioner is required. All I was relating was my own experiences with this system. I will still contend that 97.5% of the failures in the field that have occured have been from improper break in. It has been well covered that break in for these belts is very important and if not done failures will happen as was experienced very early on this season. We are seeing very little to almost no posts, post Christmas, once the word got out on breaking in. I myself took a belt out 14 miles in- Why? Because I did not follow procedure, since breaking in the second belt there has been no looking back.


As too my personal experience, I have never had to carry a torque wrench or tools required to change out either a QD Belt or Gears, Chain....etc regardless of type of Drive system. Infact I personally do not know of anyone that would carry this equipment as part of their everyday riding gear. Do I check the bolt torque on those gears every so often? You bet I do, no different than I did in checking my chaincase adjuster on my Chaincase drive sleds.

I like the quick drive system, its just a shame that Polaris did not fully engineer this system and not be so concerned about weight in key areas. With a tensioner you would not need to be concerned about those pulleys again. Once torqued to spec, a belt could be changed using only the tensioner. The other concern is where the brake is located. It needs to be on the driveshaft and thats all there is to that. Again, some engineering deficiencies......They have a good chassis, but you would think that in the 4th year of production, they would have done some necessary improvements to help win a few people back or keep the ones loyal up to this point. They lost me in the early 2000's..... Just an inferior product for alot of coin......