Weights and power to weight ratios

[500efisks]

So...Summit X weight is 464 lbs and the Pro RMK is 417 lbs. A difference of...........................47 lbs less for the Pro.
Power to weight ratio is 2.84 lb/hp for the Summit X and 2.69 lb/hp for the Pro Rmk based on manufacturers stated weights. Although 3rd party dyno tests show all manufacturers hp ratings are very likely lies I used 163 hp for the Doo and 155 hp for the Poo.
Just sayin.

 

[andrew3399]

Oh boy I tried to say the same thing yesterday and got shut down them doo guys just don't listen. I wish someone had a track Dyno to compare the two as well. Again we shall not speak of the power delivery system between the two. Might be a bad topic as well. Lol

 

[JoHNI_T]

no speaking allowed

 

[jbb]

So...Summit X weight is 464 lbs and the Pro RMK is 417 lbs. A difference of...........................47 lbs less for the Pro.
Power to weight ratio is 2.84 lb/hp for the Summit X and 2.69 lb/hp for the Pro Rmk based on manufacturers stated weights. Although 3rd party dyno tests show all manufacturers hp ratings are very likely lies I used 163 hp for the Doo and 155 hp for the Poo.
Just sayin.

dyno pages i see of the poo were 143hp. redo the math plz............

 

[Barry Barton]

all the new sleds are great it's what u like just ride and who cares what u ride.

 

[maxwell]

What's your point? Pro rmk clutching is ballistic and you have no traction whatsoever with that joke of a track. So let's call it a wash. They both climb the same because ones heavier but has more power and traction. And the other is lighter but has less traction and less power. God I feel like I'm in grade 2 where we are comparing how many apples johni has vs timmy on a final exam! Who cares! Get out and ride whatever your poison is. Everyone on the hill this weekend was having the same amount of fun no matter what they rode or how much I weighed.

Sent from a polaris pro rmk at the bottom of the hill using Tapatalk

 

[jbb]

factor in rider weights to. if you weigh a 120 and the next guys 175. your math mean chit.. just saying. oh and factor in loss for elevation to 3% per 1000ft. or do were all ride mtn sleds at see level?

 

[snopro]

So...Summit X weight is 464 lbs and the Pro RMK is 417 lbs. A difference of...........................47 lbs less for the Pro.
Power to weight ratio is 2.84 lb/hp for the Summit X and 2.69 lb/hp for the Pro Rmk based on manufacturers stated weights. Although 3rd party dyno tests show all manufacturers hp ratings are very likely lies I used 163 hp for the Doo and 155 hp for the Poo.
Just sayin.

WoW!! You guys can make more hp on these threads than Polaris can in Roseau. Problem solved. The Poo supposedly makes 151 by the same company that dynoed Doo at 163.9. The Pro 155 weighs 417 and the Doo 154x weighs 459 or if you want the Doo 154 summit sp is 456. You decide as it is your thread. Now do your math. I can trust you to run a calculator, right? What have you got now?

 

[JoHNI_T]

What's your point? Pro rmk clutching is ballistic and you have no traction whatsoever with that joke of a track. So let's call it a wash. They both climb the same because ones heavier but has more power and traction. And the other is lighter but has less traction and less power. God I feel like I'm in grade 2 where we are comparing how many apples johni has vs timmy on a final exam! Who cares! Get out and ride whatever your poison is. Everyone on the hill this weekend was having the same amount of fun no matter what they rode or how much I weighed.

Sent from a polaris pro rmk at the bottom of the hill using Tapatalk

how did I get into this.... bahahhaha

 

[maxwell]

factor in rider weights to. if you weigh a 120 and the next guys 175. your math mean chit.. just saying. oh and factor in loss for elevation to 3% per 1000ft. or do were all ride mtn sleds at see level?

Judging by this thread and a lot of other posts in various other threads its safe to assume most ride there mtn sleds below 3000 ft

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

 

[JoHNI_T]

Judging by this thread and a lot of other posts in various other threads its safe to assume most ride there mtn sleds below 3000 ft

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

sasky is taking over snowandmud......

fawk I dont even ride mine lol I just bitch about it,,, way more fun!!!! and kinda cheaper

 

[jbb]

Judging by this thread and a lot of other posts in various other threads its safe to assume most ride there mtn sleds below 3000 ft

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

are you meaning to say its isnt the same power at 7000ft? well chit..........im screwed lol

 

[jbb]

sasky is taking over snowandmud......

fawk I dont even ride mine lol I just bitch about it,,, my tri cycle without a seat is way more fun!!!! and kinda cheaper

hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[imdoo'n]

how did I get into this.... bahahhaha

everyone knows yer a bad azz.

 

[JoHNI_T]

hmmmmmmmmmmm

.
I bought it from you

 

[JoHNI_T]

everyone knows yer a bad azz.

you guys stay away from my azz...... GOT DUCT TAPE

 

[Sprint5]

I talk to the guys at boondocker and they said the polaris has 142 at sea level, and the doo has 161 at sea level and they both lose about 20-25 horse power at 11 thousand feet.

 

[MATTIAC]

Judging by this thread and a lot of other posts in various other threads its safe to assume most ride there mtn sleds below 3000 ft

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

well obviously if they are riding a poo, they cant get up past 3000ft.

 

[Modman]

HP don't mean jack, its just a # based on a calculation of RPM and torque. Peak HP doesn't mean anything if it peaks and fall off super quick, your sled will be a nightmare to clutch and keep running at peak RPM, so the power to weight calc is worthless unless you are doing cumulative HP calcs over 1,000 RPM from 7,000-8,000 RPM. You need a broad torque curve for a sled. One of the huge advantages of the new Cat 4 stroke is that it maintains peak torque for over 4,000 RPM! Yes, 4,000 RPM of peak torque, so you can let off and still be in the torque band, makes it a very easy sled to ride and clutch.

All that aside, you can't really believe stock ratings. A guy with a sled for sale in the Doo section dyno'd his built motor and it made......wait for it..................160 HP...so barely more than what it came from stock (motor was based on an 05 i think)?.....or are the stock ratings incorrect?.......you decide.

 

[maxwell]

HP don't mean jack, its just a # based on a calculation of RPM and torque. Peak HP doesn't mean anything if it peaks and fall off super quick, your sled will be a nightmare to clutch and keep running at peak RPM, so the power to weight calc is worthless unless you are doing cumulative HP calcs over 1,000 RPM from 7,000-8,000 RPM. You need a broad torque curve for a sled. One of the huge advantages of the new Cat 4 stroke is that it maintains peak torque for over 4,000 RPM! Yes, 4,000 RPM of peak torque, so you can let off and still be in the torque band, makes it a very easy sled to ride and clutch.

All that aside, you can't really believe stock ratings. A guy with a sled for sale in the Doo section dyno'd his built motor and it made......wait for it..................160 HP...so barely more than what it came from stock (motor was based on an 05 i think)?.....or are the stock ratings incorrect?.......you decide.

05 ho was 150hp. 160 is not a bad improvement imo.