Matryx Clutching Issues

[dragonweld28]

Im sure this will have a fair amount of insight to personal opinion as to what "will" or "wont" work in this application. This is just an initial thought process on making the Matryx boost a stronger performing sled. Once I actually get my sled and test, this is all quite irrelevant.

When I had the chance to ride the Boost last year it felt as though there was a fair amount of belt slip in many areas of the shift profile. Thanks to the guys at venom, I'm able to use their formulas on the TSS-04 to get an idea of belt squeeze at any particular shift point based on what specific helix angles are chosen. If you look at the factory helix, it is very steep (66) initially and then shifts to a straight 44 at 0.4 of the shift. There is also very little initial belt squeeze which is what could have caused some of the slipping i felt last spring. Looking at the pressure graph you can see it spikes a bit in the mid range and then drops off at full shift. Again, this could have been some of the slip I felt.

I will be testing a full reverse progressive once I get my sled with a bit more secondary spring pressure to hold that belt with the extra power. In the helix graph you can see that this helix should have stronger mid range and hold RPM and top end track speed better with the slightly lower final angle. I have a few different primary springs to try along with some new weighs. The goal here is to put Maxwell and the skidoo team as far behind as possible..... if we actually get these Boost's that is.....

Chat away boys!

 

[gdhillon]

Ben, I don’t know too much about clutching…but I do know the kit I got from you makes my khaos rip hard haha

I’m excited to read about what you can do with the boost sleds

 

[Briand]

The 56-36F is a interesting choice. With the stock like bottom end pull till turbo spools up, you should get very good results with the 56 starting angle. should have quick hole launch and track speed build better then the 66-44.4 helix. I also think The 36 finish angle will work well with the gearing you have shown. Interested in what secondary spring choice you have theorized to work with this. I'm goin to presume its a 140 ish start rate and a 200-220 finish rate. This is only my thoughts but i feel that if you go say with a 140- 240 secondary spring or higher with the 36* finish angle your top 1/3 of the shift out will feel quite lazy and possibly limit track speed build. In a lot of testing i have done with other sleds with a 52-38.36 * with heavier end rate springs really limited me with peak track speed in a climb. I know this is a totally new sled with i think a new primary also so anything is possible here. Shoot back a reply. I like your line of thinking here.

 

[06 Dragon]

 

[dragonweld28]

As seen in the above factory specs above, the primary spring is quote stiff. I will be running a 150-310 instead of the 165-310. I will also be using a 74 gram weights that are more tip heavy to give adequate squeeze but improving backshift. The secondary spring will go to a 175/240 from the 160/240. See how that holds. If the top end has slip still, then ill go to the 160/260.

 

[08dmax]

A softer belt works very well also to help grip, the stock poo belt 3211216 is very hard and needs lots of spring to keep form slipping.

 

[Starfire99]

As seen in the above factory specs above, the primary spring is quote stiff. I will be running a 150-310 instead of the 165-310. I will also be using a 74 gram weights that are more tip heavy to give adequate squeeze but improving backshift. The secondary spring will go to a 175/240 from the 160/240. See how that holds. If the top end has slip still, then ill go to the 160/260.

Polaris is using the 165-310 to reduce the weight force at the start of shift as much as possible because of the large 64 degree angle. However as the above graph shows, belt side force is all wrong as the shift moves from start to mid shift. IMO i would start with a straight 42 with 160-260 spring.....the reason is that in a team clutch, 160-260 gives a much quicker down shift when getting off and on the throttle. Noticeably quicker than a 140-240. Start with that, then use the 150-310 to gain weight force down low. The other thing about a 165-310 spring, it is very compacted at full shift and fails faster than a softer spring. If there is a surplus of torque down lower, you can go softer yet with a 120-310, or use the 150-310 and add helix. 46-42F would be my first choice .....through the mid shift you are at 44 degrees....not too far out of reality for this motor. Thx.

 

[mt.sledder]

Im sure this will have a fair amount of insight to personal opinion as to what "will" or "wont" work in this application. This is just an initial thought process on making the Matryx boost a stronger performing sled. Once I actually get my sled and test, this is all quite irrelevant.

When I had the chance to ride the Boost last year it felt as though there was a fair amount of belt slip in many areas of the shift profile. Thanks to the guys at venom, I'm able to use their formulas on the TSS-04 to get an idea of belt squeeze at any particular shift point based on what specific helix angles are chosen. If you look at the factory helix, it is very steep (66) initially and then shifts to a straight 44 at 0.4 of the shift. There is also very little initial belt squeeze which is what could have caused some of the slipping i felt last spring. Looking at the pressure graph you can see it spikes a bit in the mid range and then drops off at full shift. Again, this could have been some of the slip I felt.

I will be testing a full reverse progressive once I get my sled with a bit more secondary spring pressure to hold that belt with the extra power. In the helix graph you can see that this helix should have stronger mid range and hold RPM and top end track speed better with the slightly lower final angle. I have a few different primary springs to try along with some new weighs. The goal here is to put Maxwell and the skidoo team as far behind as possible..... if we actually get these Boost's that is.....

Chat away boys!

View attachment 248498
View attachment 248499
View attachment 248500

How’s that clutching coming. My sled should be here by the end of March. I’m getting ansy!!!

 

[dragonweld28]

Quick update from my last trip out.

The factory 14-78 weights simply don't have enough top end squeeze. The belt wasn't climbing very high up the primary and RPM was all over the place. Anywhere from 8100-8550. Tried multiple helixes to see what the outcome was. My initial 56-36F was better on the bottom, but worse in the mid range and top end. I also tried a 48-38.36 just to see how that felt and it just wasn't enough helix in the mid range or top end. I ended up back with the 64-44.40 with a stiffer secondary spring, and a softer primary spring with very tip heavy 76 gram weights. What a difference.

The tip heavy weights were able to push the belt further up the primary and picked up 4-5 mph track speed. Initial number during the day we 44-45mph track speed and we were at 49-50 mph at the end of the day. I have another primary spring that i would like to try, but this is a significant improvement over the stock set up.

 

[Polaris2016]

Quick update from my last trip out.

The factory 14-78 weights simply don't have enough top end squeeze. The belt wasn't climbing very high up the primary and RPM was all over the place. Anywhere from 8100-8550. Tried multiple helixes to see what the outcome was. My initial 56-36F was better on the bottom, but worse in the mid range and top end. I also tried a 48-38.36 just to see how that felt and it just wasn't enough helix in the mid range or top end. I ended up back with the 64-44.40 with a stiffer secondary spring, and a softer primary spring with very tip heavy 76 gram weights. What a difference.

The tip heavy weights were able to push the belt further up the primary and picked up 4-5 mph track speed. Initial number during the day we 44-45mph track speed and we were at 49-50 mph at the end of the day. I have another primary spring that i would like to try, but this is a significant improvement over the stock set up.

What brand of weights did you use?

 

[SnowJunkie82]

With these changes did you find any improvement on the bottom end response?

 

[BILTIT]

I have found the slp magnums work really well on NA, no experience with boosted but i am looking to add a turbo in the next year or so. Interesting conversation.

 

[Polaris2016]

I have ordered some SLP Magnum weights to try on my boost I will report back once I try them

 

[BILTIT]

I have ordered some SLP Magnum weights to try on my boost I will report back once I try them

I have found they run on the heavier side than expected (similar to the 11 series weights i suppose) could be in addition to the lower engagement primary spring too.

 

[Polaris2016]

I have found they run on the heavier side than expected (similar to the 11 series weights i suppose) could be in addition to the lower engagement primary spring too.

So I want to try the Boost closer to 8200 rpm instead of the 8550 I am at now. What would you set the SLP weights at to start 78gr?

 

[BILTIT]

I dont know with a boosted setup, i am N/A.

 

[dragonweld28]

You'll want to run your boost at 8300. A softer primary spring and weights that are more tip heavy will get you there. I was using the EPI Belly Buster Turbo weights in 76g and a 145/300 or 155/300 primary spring. i also ran a stiffer secondary spring to hold the belt better. i used a 175/240. Ill be testing the 160/260 on the next trip.