This years use of inovation/technology found on the stock sleds (discussion)

[500efisks]

Thought it might be nice to talk techy stuff introduced on the new factory sleds from all brands. Not the additon of storage, tweaking, etc. My thoughts:

Start with Doo
Very interesting rear suspension in the T motion and flex track. Pros I see. Sounds like it allows a sled to flex for sidehilling/carving requiring less human effort. If it works as good as initial reports this is a very good inovation I feel. Potential cons. Their may be negative performance effects as sometimes a solution for one problem becomes a problem somewhere else. Anyone who test rode this suspension have any feed back on where the T motion and flex track had a negative effect? Another observation I would make is that every point on a machine that is designed to allow movement will normally add weight to achieve it. The pivot will be a wearing point and possibly require maint over time (not a biggy likely). Sled manufacturing cost will be increased also. Hope this proves to be a good improvement.

Anyone else have something to add here?


Arctic Cat
Did not see anything inovative. I may not have checked close enough though. Anyone else have something to add here?

Yamaha
Did not see anything inovative. I may not have checked close enough though. Anyone else have something to add here?

Polaris
The use of a belt for the final drive is a great technological improvement (not new but a first on a factory sled). Hope more models get this improvement. Pros I see. Reduction in rolling mass (improves drive train efficiancy which is poor on sleds to start with) and overall weight. Eliminates tensioners, oil and case saving on parts and weight. Reduced parts means improved reliabilty. May be less likely to break than a steel chain (time will tell)...or maybe more likely. Potential cons. First year not able to change gearing (I think this is a very minor con as I would assume only 5 % or less people mess with gearing). Will it stand up to shock loads? Time will tell on this but I am guessing failure rates will be very low.

Polaris is using carbon fibre on load carrying components. Pros. weight saving / strong when used in the right configuration as they are in the front structure. Cons. Carbon fibre normally adds cost (possibly manufacturing in mass reduces this cost to acceptable levels). As a note the carbon fibre used on the bumper is not a good location as we tend to use the bumper for many things and overload the carbon fibre to it's breaking point. Not a good location for carbon fibre.

Thoughts folks?

 

[scrfce]

Thought it might be nice to talk techy stuff introduced on the new factory sleds from all brands. Not the additon of storage, tweaking, etc. My thoughts:

Start with Doo
Very interesting rear suspension in the T motion and flex track. Pros I see. Sounds like it allows a sled to flex for sidehilling/carving requiring less human effort. If it works as good as initial reports this is a very good inovation I feel. Potential cons. Their may be negative performance effects as sometimes a solution for one problem becomes a problem somewhere else. Anyone who test rode this suspension have any feed back on where the T motion and flex track had a negative effect? Another observation I would make is that every point on a machine that is designed to allow movement will normally add weight to achieve it. The pivot will be a wearing point and possibly require maint over time (not a biggy likely). Sled manufacturing cost will be increased also. Hope this proves to be a good improvement.

Anyone else have something to add here?


Arctic Cat
Did not see anything inovative. I may not have checked close enough though. Anyone else have something to add here?

Yamaha
Did not see anything inovative. I may not have checked close enough though. Anyone else have something to add here?

Polaris
The use of a belt for the final drive is a great technological improvement (not new but a first on a factory sled). Hope more models get this improvement. Pros I see. Reduction in rolling mass (improves drive train efficiancy which is poor on sleds to start with) and overall weight. Eliminates tensioners, oil and case saving on parts and weight. Reduced parts means improved reliabilty. May be less likely to break than a steel chain (time will tell)...or maybe more likely. Potential cons. First year not able to change gearing (I think this is a very minor con as I would assume only 5 % or less people mess with gearing). Will it stand up to shock loads? Time will tell on this but I am guessing failure rates will be very low.

Polaris is using carbon fibre on load carrying components. Pros. weight saving / strong when used in the right configuration as they are in the front structure. Cons. Carbon fibre normally adds cost (possibly manufacturing in mass reduces this cost to acceptable levels). As a note the carbon fibre used on the bumper is not a good location as we tend to use the bumper for many things and overload the carbon fibre to it's breaking point. Not a good location for carbon fibre.

Thoughts folks?

didnt see anything innovative from cat??? should probably pay a lil more attn,,, albeit not not for everyone but a factory mtn turbo sled is pretty innovative

poo, ya the drive and boards look nice but they need that xtra hp

doo did good , i liked the tmotion, track and better steering setup than the past crap,,, u never know they might put out some type of lockout for the tmotion as well, which could limit wear and tear on say trail situations

 

[scrfce]

oh ya and cat came out with tall spindles

 

[ksherren]

Dude is talking 2013 model not 2012

didnt see anything innovative from cat??? should probably pay a lil more attn,,, albeit not not for everyone but a factory mtn turbo sled is pretty innovative

poo, ya the drive and boards look nice but they need that xtra hp

doo did good , i liked the tmotion, track and better steering setup than the past crap,,, u never know they might put out some type of lockout for the tmotion as well, which could limit wear and tear on say trail situations

 

[etecheaven]

i think its important to note the flex track as an item of its own. That flex edge track in a completely new idea that has never been done before. Most manufactures just look to the aftermarket for ideas on how to improve the sleds, coming up with a completely new idea that requires massive testing and cost like that is a huge release from Skidoo. Not even track specialist were innovative enough to come up with it.

Also to note with the t-motion is they left it capable of being installed on a XP as well. Leaving this flexability between skids is awesome. Just think every time a guys buys a new phone you have to buy a new freaking charger cause the port is different. What a pain in the ass. Opens the door to way 5 previous years of aftermarket add ons without having to wait for stuff to match up with the current sled.

Finally although i have not seen it, the new mounting system for the fuel caddy and carry bags looks super slick and easy to use. No more loseing fuel cans on the trail up. Awesome accessory release for doo.

I have not spent to much time on the Polaris site so ill leave my response to that i have knowledge of instead of speculation.

 

[kabcan]

I'd like to hear about the cats tall spindles. Pros/cons. How does it handle?

 

[TheMuffinMan]

I think that considering the state of sled sales right now, we are lucky to be seeing any innovations at all. The plus side is that sales have dropped much more on the trail side than on the mountain side. Maybe this is why we are finally seeing the addition of mountain-specific platforms. Cool stuff all around really, I especially like the backwards-comparability of the new skidoo stuff...makes my 2011 xp a little less worthless. I'm curious to see how much of the new handling prowess is due to the pivoting suspension and how much is due to the track, it would make my upgrade choices a little easier.

Awesome stuff from Polaris as well. Belt drive is the future; Polaris would do well to buy exclusive rights to the design if they haven't already. Time will tell on the extensive use of carbon fibre though, it could go either way depending on the quality of the composites. Mass production of carbon fibre usually results in poor quality parts, to build it properly costs a lot of money. It had poor flex characteristics as well. But if they do it right, home run no doubt.

Still waiting for something amazing from Yamaha, they certainly have the engineering know-how to blow everyone else out of the water if they chose to, but sled sales are such a small piece of their global puzzle I can't see it happening. Couldn't care less about arctic cat; they could come out with a 350lb sled and I still wouldn't buy it, union-built garbage will always be union-built garbage. As soon as Suzuki stops making motors for them they are done.

 

[500efisks]

didnt see anything innovative from cat??? should probably pay a lil more attn,,, albeit not not for everyone but a factory mtn turbo sled is pretty innovative

poo, ya the drive and boards look nice but they need that xtra hp

doo did good , i liked the tmotion, track and better steering setup than the past crap,,, u never know they might put out some type of lockout for the tmotion as well, which could limit wear and tear on say trail situations

Like others said I am interested in this years inovation, not last years. Factory Turbo and tall spindles are last years news. Polaris's boards are 50% inovation 50% improvement. The inovation I guess is the use of extruded aluminum as compared to forming with the tunnel (see what I meam about inovation). What has a manufacturer done that has not been done on a factory sled before (this year only). Really there is not much new anywhere. Alot of us Poo fans were waiting for the introduction of the DI Orbital engine they have rights to. Take the lightest increadibly handling sled and give it the DI engine and all it's benefits with increased power and wow. I would venture to guess the mountain sled market would be Polaris's by a long shot. The engine is the weak spot right now...right Polaris?

 

[cdnredneck_t3]

Polaris
The use of a belt for the final drive is a great technological improvement (not new but a first on a factory sled). Hope more models get this improvement. Pros I see. Reduction in rolling mass (improves drive train efficiancy which is poor on sleds to start with) and overall weight. Eliminates tensioners, oil and case saving on parts and weight. Reduced parts means improved reliabilty. May be less likely to break than a steel chain (time will tell)...or maybe more likely. Potential cons. First year not able to change gearing (I think this is a very minor con as I would assume only 5 % or less people mess with gearing). Will it stand up to shock loads? Time will tell on this but I am guessing failure rates will be very low.

I am a Millwright and we have switched all of our Fin Fan heat exchangers over to Gates Positive drive belts like the ones on the Poo. A 1 inch wide belt will stand up to a 50 HP electric motor Going from 0 - 1800 RPM in a split second. I think the 2 1/2 inch belt on the Poo will hold up just fine. They have been using them on street bikes for years too.

 

[braap braap58]

I haven't heard of the DI engine to it. I tried to google it and nothing really came up can you maybe give more information about the maybe new engine?

 

[adamg]

It's his fantasy engine, braap.

 

[dinlaroche]

I'm not sold on the 4 degrees of rotation on the rear suspension concept, but I think the idea of the folding side of the track has potential. I would worry about the folding track on steep sidehills though. With firmer snow I'm thinking that the sled wouldn't hold it's line as well (edge of track not digging in at an angle) and would want to wash out more.

 

[500efisks]

I haven't heard of the DI engine to it. I tried to google it and nothing really came up can you maybe give more information about the maybe new engine?

From Snowgoer
When U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for snowmobiles started in 2006, Ski-Doo already had its 600 H.O. SDI two-stroke engine on the snow for two years. It was considerably cleaner than regulations required and it achieved industry-leading fuel economy. The engine was light, powerful, dependable and clean.
As the Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP) Evinrude group developed the E-TEC system for its outboard motors (BRP acquired Evinrude in 2001), it became clear that this technology could translate directly to Ski-Doo snowmobiles. In the winter of 2008, Ski-Doo released the 600 H.O. E-TEC engine.
Is the E-TEC engine a big deal in the world of snowmobiling? Absolutely. It demonstrates that the two-stroke engine — with all of the advantages it offers for snowmobiling — is far from being axed from snowmobile manufacturers’ product plans. The 600 H.O. E-TEC is available across Ski-Doo’s 2009 lineup and further expansion of the direct injected technologies will prove the strength of the two-stroke engine design and its attributes.
2 Stroke Future
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed emission restrictions on snowmobiles in 2006, which put limits on the levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) that could be present in the exhaust. There was no imposition of what type of engine manufacturers could use. If a two-stroke engine could run clean enough to meet the regulations, it would be accepted.
When emission regulations were applied to on-road motorcycles in the mid-1970s, all manufacturers switched to four-stroke engines for their bikes. Almost 40 years later, the 600 H.O. E-TEC has considerably lower CO emissions than any four-stroke snowmobile engine in production. The E-TEC engine brings a whole host of innovations, including an easier cold-start; electronic oil injection; a fuel-cooled engine management computer and a push-button summerization procedure.
The outboard motor industry went under regulation in 1998. Most manufacturers quickly converted to four-stroke engine designs, but they received backlash almost as fast because engines were heavier and more expensive.
Now, virtually every outboard manufacturer offers both two- and four-stroke engines. The one manufacturer that stayed exclusively with two-stroke engines for its outboards is BRP and its Evinrude brand. The E-TEC direct injection system was developed to meet the emission standards while providing less weight and good performance and fuel economy at a lower cost than competing four-stroke engines.

Other Direct Injection Systems
In the early 1990s, an Australian firm, the Orbital Engine Company, developed a two-stroke automobile engine that met then-current U.S. emissions requirements, exceeded the four-stroke fuel efficiency numbers, weighed almost 200 pounds less than a four-stroke that produced similar power, vibrated less than an equivalent four-stroke and cost from $300 to $500 less to manufacture.
Needless to say, the transportation industries got excited with Orbital’s demonstration. Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mercury Marine, Outboard Marine Corporation, Polaris Industries, Bombardier — and likely many other engine manufacturers — soon bought patent licenses to use Orbital’s concepts for clean two-stroke development programs.
Automobile companies around the world have launched direct-injection projects, many of which don’t include Orbital’s design. The variety of concepts being developed is impressive and each one seems to confirm the ability to overcome the perceived two-stroke bug-a-boos of suffering from poor economy and high emissions.
Mercury Marine uses Orbital technology in its two-stage, direct-injection two-stroke outboards. The Dodge Neon car was originally slated to have a direct-injected, two-stroke engine, but development of the engine was delayed and a small four-stroke went to production.
Polaris has license to the Orbital patents and has been working on two-stroke engines that are cleaner than its current Cleanfire semi-direct injection systems. Arctic Cat is committed to two-stroke engine designs for its snowmobiles and it is working on direct injection designs.
Yamaha builds two-stroke outboards with High-Pressure Direct Injection (HPDI). The 200 HPDI engine has twin, high-speed fuel pumps that pressurize the gas up to 1,000 psi, and then inject the fuel after the exhaust ports are closed. The system is similar to injection systems on diesel engines.
The 2-Stroke Of Tomorrow Is Evolving
Research continues by companies that have purchased license to use Orbital’s technology and GM, Ford and others have developed two-stroke designs of their own. Most of these engine designs utilize crankcase scavenging (crankcase pressure is used to push exhaust gasses out of the combustion chamber) and total-loss lubrication systems (oil essentially becomes part of the fuel charge). All designs scavenge the cylinders only with air, incorporate some means of varying the exhaust timing, include a multiple-chamber cylinder head and utilize air-assisted fuel injection.

 

[500efisks]

It's his fantasy engine, braap.

Really?

 

[500efisks]

More info from the Orbital Corp. site. Amazing what google can do. Doo uses the Ficht system for simplicity (but not as good at atominzing fuel which is where the economy comes in). The Orbital system is better at fuel atomization but involves more mechanics to do it. Probably what is holding up Polaris from introducing the engine and why they are trimming weight now in anticipation for the heavier engine. Sorry about the information posted below but it was copy/paisted by me and was a pain to reformat so I left it as it was paisted.

Two commercial direct injection systems were investigated for use in retrofit applications: Ficht and Orbital. The Ficht system, now owned by Bombardier, utilizes a hammer injection system. Fuel is introduced into the injector at low pressure, and a solenoid is used to “hammer” the fuel, rapidly increasing its pressure and using that pressure to inject and atomize the fuel.This system has the advantage of having relatively few parts, which makes it attractive as a retrofit solution. Unfortunately the solenoid used to hammer the fuel has a high power/voltage requirement (between 38 and 43

volts)
10 and therefore is not suitable for retrofit to small low

power engines.

The Orbital system relies on an air-assisted, “spray

guided” injection system known as the Orbital Combustion

Process (OCP). The OCP system utilizes a gasoline injector to

meter the fuel. Compressed air is then used to atomize the fuel

into tiny droplets. The size of the droplets is key due to the

short time available for vaporization. Of the available

commercial systems the OCP system boasts the smallest droplets

with a Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) of 7 micrometers.
11 The

air blast system requires the use of a second “air” injector

supplied by a small mechanical air compressor. The

advantages of this system are the low power draw as well as its

proven commercial viability. The durability of the Orbital OCP

system has been demonstrated by endurance tests
12 and by the

successful conclusion of a large fleet trial. In this trial, 100

Ford Festiva vehicles were equipped with two-stroke Orbital

engines. These vehicles successfully accumulated over five

million kilometers of operation while showing excellent

reliability and durability.
13 The Orbital OCP system has also

shown real world reliability and has now been in use for over six

years on Mercury Optimax outboards and for over four years in

SeaDoo watercraft equipped with Bombardier engines. The

only disadvantage seen with the Orbital system is the added

complexity of providing compressed air to the system.

When the two systems were compared with the

constraints of the project, the Orbital system was chosen. The

added complexity of adding an air compressor to the system was

a detriment, however it was still considered preferable when

compared to the large power draw of the Ficht system. The

Orbital system also has a proven track record and is at full

 

[Scotty]

Couldn't care less about arctic cat; they could come out with a 350lb sled and I still wouldn't buy it, union-built garbage will always be union-built garbage. As soon as Suzuki stops making motors for them they are done.

Amazing what some Crakheads will say