Yamaha doesn't have issues with their clutching or drive train so why fix what isn't broke? Also, the CVT is very tunable and a chain case allows for easy and relatively inexpensive gearing changes. How can you change the "gearing" on a hydrostatic system?
Every hydrostatic system I've used or seen is in something heavy and slow. If it was so wonderful, efficent and good for high speed use you'd see in automobiles and you don't. Its a great system for skid steers, tractors, snow blowers, etc.
My thoughts on the "industry first" is a collaberative effort with Cat to build sleds in the USA. Chris Reid wrote a response in his blog "Last I looked Cat was making ATV’s and UTV’s as well, would be kinda hard for us to ‘merge’, without messing up a whole lotta stuff. I’d prefer it if we just purchased Ski-doo and half the market with it, sell off the Rotax division and ah come to think of it, maybe not..lol.
My real wish list would have, right at the top, two all new platforms with all new engines both boosted and N/A, built in our Newnan Ga factory offering Yamaha quality at Polaris price with a hundred variations covering every corner of the market. whew, I think I need a smoke! cheers man, here’s to the dream!!"
Having Cat build a Nytro replacement model in the USA is a step closer to that scenario. In another blog post he makes mention of Suzuki's bankruptcy and Cat not probably not having regrets about parting ways with the big S.
http://snowmobiles.yamahablogs.ca/2012/11/07/bam-bang/
Additionally there are posts on HCS about Yamaha's being built on the Cat assembly line. There are just too many people and too many media organizations hinting about a Cat/Yamaha agreement for it not to be true.
A hybrid Procross Yamaha would be a much better performing sled than anything Yamaha currently makes. If they are using the name SR Viper it would make sense from the perspective that the original Viper was supposed to be their big bump sled (never understood why they thought this). The Cat chassis is simply more capable than a Yamaha chassis in ride and handling.
Every hydrostatic system I've used or seen is in something heavy and slow. If it was so wonderful, efficent and good for high speed use you'd see in automobiles and you don't. Its a great system for skid steers, tractors, snow blowers, etc.
My thoughts on the "industry first" is a collaberative effort with Cat to build sleds in the USA. Chris Reid wrote a response in his blog "Last I looked Cat was making ATV’s and UTV’s as well, would be kinda hard for us to ‘merge’, without messing up a whole lotta stuff. I’d prefer it if we just purchased Ski-doo and half the market with it, sell off the Rotax division and ah come to think of it, maybe not..lol.
My real wish list would have, right at the top, two all new platforms with all new engines both boosted and N/A, built in our Newnan Ga factory offering Yamaha quality at Polaris price with a hundred variations covering every corner of the market. whew, I think I need a smoke! cheers man, here’s to the dream!!"
Having Cat build a Nytro replacement model in the USA is a step closer to that scenario. In another blog post he makes mention of Suzuki's bankruptcy and Cat not probably not having regrets about parting ways with the big S.
http://snowmobiles.yamahablogs.ca/2012/11/07/bam-bang/
Additionally there are posts on HCS about Yamaha's being built on the Cat assembly line. There are just too many people and too many media organizations hinting about a Cat/Yamaha agreement for it not to be true.
A hybrid Procross Yamaha would be a much better performing sled than anything Yamaha currently makes. If they are using the name SR Viper it would make sense from the perspective that the original Viper was supposed to be their big bump sled (never understood why they thought this). The Cat chassis is simply more capable than a Yamaha chassis in ride and handling.
Malibu
Expert
That doesent constrict.........hmmmmm.yamaha has done alot with Toyota,so mabye its a petrol- electric driveline?would be cool 
Dano
TY 4 Stroke Master
BETHEVIPER said:
I agree that we'll never have crank hp at the track, that's a given. I recall some smaller Polaris and John Deere sleds from the early 80's that has direct drive. They made better power down at the track by losing chain case, but lacked in speed in its class due to not having the ability to gear up the CVT. Probably the reason direct drive never made it past a 340 cc sled if I remember correctly.
I'm only guessing the efficiency gains by ditching the CVT/chain case system. If we can get from 50% power lose to the track to 30% power lose, that would be 20% more hp at the track. That would be huge, but those numbers are all guessing on my part.
Dan
sledhead23
Extreme
The track is a large contributing factor but so is the cvt. With a typical cvt you are losing 5 to 10% power (90-95% efficiency) then an additional 1-2% lost for every gear it goes through, which is huge if you think of the gears within that system.
Sportsterdanne said:Its the track itself thats robs the most power not the CVT and chaincase.
Dano said:couch said:
And to add, you would be able to position the motor where you want it, not where it fits with CVT. With a CVT, you need the gap between primary and secondary which makes it tuff to keep motor mass center of chassis. The new Viper has the front exhaust, which means the triple is backwards in the chassis. The engine oil system is supposedly combined with the drive system. Gotta read between the lines
Gonna have to change our way of thinking. If we can get 90hp at the track with 130 engine hp, we're ahead of the competition big bores.
Dan
sledhead23
Extreme
Even if your only looking at an additional 5% increase in efficiency in a 160hp sled that equates to an increase of 8hp to the track without even touching the motor.
sledhead23
Extreme
Akrider, yamaha has used this type of techno on there bikes in the Paris- Dakar rally and was proven very reliable and has proven this type of system can be used for recreational purposes.
Dano
TY 4 Stroke Master
sledhead23 said:
Good info. Where do you get your stats? I suck at math.
Dan
7 skulls
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
Not only Paris-Dakar. When a R1 was fitted with the same system, lap times dropped by 7 to 10 seconds. That's 180-230 hp.
The CVT is in use for a reason - it works very well in a snowmobile application, is relatively light, and as betheviper explained, quite efficient. I dont think it's going anywhere. The next big innovation in driveline (I have no idea when) is the computerized clutch system that does away with weights and other pieces. The company that betheviper mentioned has been selling a system for quite a few years now. I'm surprised that it hasn't been done by one of the big 4 yet.
Rocketman
Extreme
What about super charger? That would be a first for production sled and they have much experience here..........watercraft.
Dano
TY 4 Stroke Master
vice108 said:
I'll play the devils advocate on the CVT. With the CVT, we can't do away with a full chain case and we would still be fighting on trying to position motor farther back in chassis. Can do like doo and push the primary down and pull secondary up high and run a mile long chain in chain case. We Can bring direct drive back, but if we're spinning clutches at 9000 RPM max, we would be lucky to hit 70 mph. So CVT in a snowmachine will always be inefficient. Cost effective, yes. I rather think outside the box.
Dan
brad d
Extreme
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 92
sledhead23 said:
Looking at the system it seems that the rear wheel is just hooked up the same way to the tranny as all bikes with a chain, then they have a pump to drive the front wheel only... so not much power is being used to power the front wheel.
sledhead23
Extreme
Dano said:
I have access to scholar database since I am in university. And have done a considerable amount of research on belt driven cvt's and hsd systems. From what I can see hsd's in smaller applications are more efficient (that's just comparing the actual cvt to hsd excluding gears) when including the number of gears required in a sleds drive system to transfer the power over a greater distance ( not as direct) your are loosing a even more power. The system itself would be heavy but compared to current drives it would be considerably lighter, you would also beable to alter the frame to be lighter as positioning motor would not depend on where the clutches and jackshaft go. I see this technology having a future in sport recreation, if not in 2014 I can see it happening soon
I fail to see what is gained with the Ohlins system? They still used the bike's gearbox so it's not like it would replace the CVT. The CVT is the "gear box". Why would you want to have an expensive and complicated pump and two hoses to replace the chain case? The system weighs over 17 lbs, I bet that is similar to or heavier than a chain case.
If a guy really wants to replace the chain case than go with a belt drive. A broken belt can be replaced in the field. Belt drive is simple, light weight and cheap to produce. I think Polaris's version is a POS but the aftermarket versions like the C3 or Crazy Mountain Machine are reported to work pretty well. http://www.crazymtn.com/sifiso/pages/cmxds.html
https://www.c3powersports.com/category/ ... yncrodrive
If a guy really wants to replace the chain case than go with a belt drive. A broken belt can be replaced in the field. Belt drive is simple, light weight and cheap to produce. I think Polaris's version is a POS but the aftermarket versions like the C3 or Crazy Mountain Machine are reported to work pretty well. http://www.crazymtn.com/sifiso/pages/cmxds.html
https://www.c3powersports.com/category/ ... yncrodrive
Dano
TY 4 Stroke Master
AKrider said:
That's just making a more efficient chain alternative without the ability of reverse.(at least for the 4stroke)
Dan
