Thatspec
Extreme
Aside from a slight weight penalty (and being butt ugly), whats to stop one from mounting a set of these 3" urethane wheels all the way up at the tip of the rails? Much further forward than in this pic...
http://www.mountainperformance.com/imag ... cher-f.jpg
They wouldn't even touch most of the time if mounted right.
Given the fixed point of the driveshaft, it seems that the further forward the skid rails are, the more likely it is the tips will come into contact with the track particularly with higher weight transfer to the rear (and front limiters looser). The angle from the driveshaft to the first contact with the rail should become steeper as we move the rail forward. This I've been assuming is a bad thing, but is it really? Any, and all opinions welcome.
When the rail is moved further forward (via the tunnel mounting points) don't we also take more of the weight from our gawdawfully heavy front ends onto the skid? Is this more or less important than the resulting steeper approach angle?
Obviously, I'm no snow machine suspension expert (but I play one on the internet), and this is helping my typing skills tremendously. All of the above should really have question marks at the end.
The proof is in the results, and with the snow changing from day to day its hard to say that subtle changes that we make to our suspensions are really doing anything. Did anyone that installed an M7 skid measure their approach angle before and after? Is some of the improvement the result of 25 pounds lost? How could Yamaha have made such a heavy suspension?!
And finally, what is the true meaning of "drop and roll"? Think I got the drop part, but roll?? Since typically the driveshaft ends up lower, and further aft, the aft part again I gotta question. In moving the driveshaft aft aren't we increasing the approach angle, and putting more weight on the skis?
Horsepower does not seem to be the problem even stock, traction is, I want more. Right now I'm tending to want to find the 153 M7 skid because of approach angle (not so easy to find though). Should be approx. the same as I have now. Weight distribution should be the same (cruddy). Traction should be greatly increased with the 162x16x2.3. If you think the 162 rails would be better even without a drop and roll (would have to move the tunnel mount points way forward), I'm interested in that argument as well
http://www.mountainperformance.com/imag ... cher-f.jpg
They wouldn't even touch most of the time if mounted right.
Given the fixed point of the driveshaft, it seems that the further forward the skid rails are, the more likely it is the tips will come into contact with the track particularly with higher weight transfer to the rear (and front limiters looser). The angle from the driveshaft to the first contact with the rail should become steeper as we move the rail forward. This I've been assuming is a bad thing, but is it really? Any, and all opinions welcome.
When the rail is moved further forward (via the tunnel mounting points) don't we also take more of the weight from our gawdawfully heavy front ends onto the skid? Is this more or less important than the resulting steeper approach angle?
Obviously, I'm no snow machine suspension expert (but I play one on the internet), and this is helping my typing skills tremendously. All of the above should really have question marks at the end.
The proof is in the results, and with the snow changing from day to day its hard to say that subtle changes that we make to our suspensions are really doing anything. Did anyone that installed an M7 skid measure their approach angle before and after? Is some of the improvement the result of 25 pounds lost? How could Yamaha have made such a heavy suspension?!
And finally, what is the true meaning of "drop and roll"? Think I got the drop part, but roll?? Since typically the driveshaft ends up lower, and further aft, the aft part again I gotta question. In moving the driveshaft aft aren't we increasing the approach angle, and putting more weight on the skis?
Horsepower does not seem to be the problem even stock, traction is, I want more. Right now I'm tending to want to find the 153 M7 skid because of approach angle (not so easy to find though). Should be approx. the same as I have now. Weight distribution should be the same (cruddy). Traction should be greatly increased with the 162x16x2.3. If you think the 162 rails would be better even without a drop and roll (would have to move the tunnel mount points way forward), I'm interested in that argument as well
Thrusted Vector
Expert
That's what I did to prevent my MSRX from spearing,you can get a kit from Yamaha to do such a thing.Well you used to.It's not hard to build,one cross shaft from the suspension rails and two wheels from say the old Phazers that used to hold up the track,the little 4" ones,get rid of the tips,drill two holes up front,making sure they clear the drivers,and that's it.
BlgsRX-1mtn
TY 4 Stroke God
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 841
- Location
- Billings, MT
- Country
- USA
- Snowmobile
- '03 RX-1 Mountain LE
ThatSpec, I think on you question about the meaning of the "drop and roll"; the drop we all unserstand, the roll is to keep the bottom of the chain case from being in a precarious place for rocks etc and to keep the correct center to center on the clutches. I might be wrong but that is the understanding I have of the roll.
Rx1M5
VIP Member
The drop is to create clearance under the tunnel between the track and tunnel. The roll is used to create clearance from the front cooler. The center to center distance is maintained by the jackshaft placement in relation to the crank where the drop and roll term really refers to the driveshaft. Check out the pics of how I did mine and maybe it'll make more sense.
Paul
Paul
Attachments
Feetsbig
Pro
cool,did u make the template or buy it?
Rx1M5
VIP Member
I made it.
Rx1m5
Rx1m5
Thatspec
Extreme
Sorry to drag this back up again but I forgot to say thanks for the reponses. Paul the pics are very informative, can't believe your clearance. One thing I don't understand is, how you were able to use a stock clutch belt after this. I guess looks are just deceiving in this case. Pretty cool though probably more than I want to tackle.
Mark
Mark
Rx1M5
VIP Member
The center to center distance from the crank to the jackshaft does not change just the position of the jackshaft in the chassis changes. The jackshaft "drops" and the the driveshaft drops and rolls back.
Thatspec
Extreme
Thanks Paul,
While I've got you here online. As I recall, you had the Fox Zero pro rear shocks. Did you notice any difference assuming you ran the stock Arctic cat ACT shocks previously, or did they come with your skid? I've got a line on a pair for a reasonable price, just wondering if its worth it. For all I know they may both be made by Fox.
BTW, the exhaust I'm told is in my office, won't be back 'til sunday however.
Thanks, Mark
While I've got you here online. As I recall, you had the Fox Zero pro rear shocks. Did you notice any difference assuming you ran the stock Arctic cat ACT shocks previously, or did they come with your skid? I've got a line on a pair for a reasonable price, just wondering if its worth it. For all I know they may both be made by Fox.
BTW, the exhaust I'm told is in my office, won't be back 'til sunday however.
Thanks, Mark
