Viper34
Pro
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 138
I took 1.6mm off each side of the weight. What I did was, measure the width with a caliper, then deduct 1.6mm and locked the calipers tight. Then went over to the grinder and started removing material from one side until I could slide the weights along the inside of the calipers. Then deducted another 1.6mm and ground off the other side, repeating the same procedure. This basically gave me more adjustability, but I was running between 7000 and 10,000ft. I ended up adding some weight back using rivets. What I found was, the stock profile works best, but I just needed to reduce force throughout the entire stroke. Seems like the stock weights profile "fits" the torque and HP of that engine best.
Ok, technically it is a balance of track speed and traction. On the 2 inch thing I would have to say that unless you state otherwise, the assumption here is going to be that you are running a 2" 151 on your RX-1. So suddenly saying to cut your paddles off is a bit SILLY to say the least. To start arguing about traction is also a bit silly when the assumption is that we are all talking about the same track. When I post about clutching I always try to make sure that I tell the persons involved that I am running a 159.
How can vehicle speed be even remotely reliable as an indicator in mountain climbing? If you get on here and tell me that you are climbing hills with a "vehicle" speed of 65MPH, I am unfortunately not going to put much weight in your suggestions. Why? Because if you are able to climb hills at 65 MPH then you are not climbing the same kind of hills that I am. Some of the toughest hills that get climbed are at vehicle speeds of less than 10MPH. How is that helpful? Further your vehicle speed is probably greater at the begining of the hill than at the peak. Again, How is that helpful? Given good deep powder conditions there should be little sustained fluctuations in track speeds. Hence the reference by SS that track speed tends to be a better indicator of performance.
You said earlier that track speeds vary with conditions. You are correct, but vehicle speeds vary MUCH, MUCH more.
One last thought............ When people are building and tuning clutch parts and when the "great" mountain clutch tuners are talking setups why have I NEVER, EVER heard one of them talk "vehicle" speeds? EVERYone of them will talk acceleration, punch, hit, and.................. TRACK SPEED!!
There's my $1.95 worth.
Oh and PB no J, I think "lambasted" is a bit strong. I was one of the ones that "lambasted" you. As memory serves me you admitted you were not measuring your track speed in very deep powder at all. I think I suggested you try some deeper powder and report back. If you have done that and are getting 53 or better yet 63 MPH track speed consistantly in bottomless powder then I will switch to your clutching immediately.
Surgeon General's Warning:
The preceeding post was not meant to lambast anyone. Any thoughts that you have been lambasted are incorrect thoughts. You are paranoid and should seek immediate medical attention.
How can vehicle speed be even remotely reliable as an indicator in mountain climbing? If you get on here and tell me that you are climbing hills with a "vehicle" speed of 65MPH, I am unfortunately not going to put much weight in your suggestions. Why? Because if you are able to climb hills at 65 MPH then you are not climbing the same kind of hills that I am. Some of the toughest hills that get climbed are at vehicle speeds of less than 10MPH. How is that helpful? Further your vehicle speed is probably greater at the begining of the hill than at the peak. Again, How is that helpful? Given good deep powder conditions there should be little sustained fluctuations in track speeds. Hence the reference by SS that track speed tends to be a better indicator of performance.
You said earlier that track speeds vary with conditions. You are correct, but vehicle speeds vary MUCH, MUCH more.
One last thought............ When people are building and tuning clutch parts and when the "great" mountain clutch tuners are talking setups why have I NEVER, EVER heard one of them talk "vehicle" speeds? EVERYone of them will talk acceleration, punch, hit, and.................. TRACK SPEED!!
There's my $1.95 worth.
Oh and PB no J, I think "lambasted" is a bit strong. I was one of the ones that "lambasted" you. As memory serves me you admitted you were not measuring your track speed in very deep powder at all. I think I suggested you try some deeper powder and report back. If you have done that and are getting 53 or better yet 63 MPH track speed consistantly in bottomless powder then I will switch to your clutching immediately.
Surgeon General's Warning:
The preceeding post was not meant to lambast anyone. Any thoughts that you have been lambasted are incorrect thoughts. You are paranoid and should seek immediate medical attention.
Frostbite
TY 4 Stroke God
Perhaps a "Doubting Thomas" would be more appropriate :lol: My report to you guys on my track speed was the first time I ever took the time to look down and even care what my track speed was. Then (like I said earlier) it was "The hill your were on wasn't steep enough! How deep was the snow?".
Track speed MAY be of value if we were all climbing the same hill and WE ALL WEIGHED THE SAME!
That would be a good thing to try this winter, have one designated test pilot try our myriad of clutching options and THEN maybe track speed MAY be a good indication of what works best for THAT DAY and SNOW CONDITIONS. I'm affraid the next week all bets would be off when we were in perhaps a fluffier snow condition.
I have climbed in Cooke City for several years and guess what? I never heard anyone (In our group anyway) ever say "what kind of track speed are you getting"? Maybe they just knew? Maybe they just didn't care? PB
PS: The preceeding information was meant for general consumption only. If you feel the above comments are targeted directly at you please consult your doctor before increasing your prozec dosage.
Track speed MAY be of value if we were all climbing the same hill and WE ALL WEIGHED THE SAME!
That would be a good thing to try this winter, have one designated test pilot try our myriad of clutching options and THEN maybe track speed MAY be a good indication of what works best for THAT DAY and SNOW CONDITIONS. I'm affraid the next week all bets would be off when we were in perhaps a fluffier snow condition.
I have climbed in Cooke City for several years and guess what? I never heard anyone (In our group anyway) ever say "what kind of track speed are you getting"? Maybe they just knew? Maybe they just didn't care? PB
PS: The preceeding information was meant for general consumption only. If you feel the above comments are targeted directly at you please consult your doctor before increasing your prozec dosage.
So, WHEN TUNING CLUTCHES, what would YOU suggest a person use as there indicator of performance?
WHAT is more consistant than track speed? (measured CORRECTLY)
Frankly, I think what we have is a failure to communicate. Sled Nazi and I have both tried to tell you how to measure track speed and you do not seem to understand it. If you did you would understand why the things you are listing have little effect on TRACK speed readings and a LOT of effect on things like VEHICLE speed.
I don't think this thread is really accomplishing anything.
WHAT is more consistant than track speed? (measured CORRECTLY)
Frankly, I think what we have is a failure to communicate. Sled Nazi and I have both tried to tell you how to measure track speed and you do not seem to understand it. If you did you would understand why the things you are listing have little effect on TRACK speed readings and a LOT of effect on things like VEHICLE speed.
I don't think this thread is really accomplishing anything.
BlgsRX-1mtn
TY 4 Stroke God
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,530
- Location
- Billings, MT
- Country
- USA
- Snowmobile
- '03 RX-1 Mountain LE
I have heard track speed mentioned by people before, but not by people I ride with. Everyone I ride with carries clutch tuning parts/tools and adjust the clutch each time to get the right rpms on a particular day.
BlgsRX-1mtn said:
Yes RPM's another important factor. Sorry, I got so caught up in this vehicle speed debate that I forgot the obvious.
Frostbite
TY 4 Stroke God
Perhaps it's just us nonscholarly types that detect a fly in the ointmnet of your argument?
You have a 159" track. I'm sure you did it to increase your flotation and climbing ability. I would bet your track speed would have went down if you hadn't changed to a lower gear ratio. Now your track speed is irrelevant to the rest of us because of the you have changed two of the variables you'd had agreed were considered as constants?
Now add in your White Knuckle exhaust, the loss of 60 lbs. of weight from other areas and now you have thrown two more wild cards into the theorum.
I'm telling you, you're basing your hypothesis on junk science to say your track speed is higher than our track speed so therefore your sled is superior to ours.
I'm sorry, I'm not lowering myself to being drug down the road to suffering from "Track Speed Envy".
Like I said before. Sure it's probably a good indicator of progress you're making in the cluthcing of your own sled. If you change setups and get 5 mph of track speed climbing; great.
There are just too many variables and like snow condition, temps, rider weight, ELEVATION, ect. to say what works in your neck of the woods applies universally to everyone. Nice try though. Powder Blue
You have a 159" track. I'm sure you did it to increase your flotation and climbing ability. I would bet your track speed would have went down if you hadn't changed to a lower gear ratio. Now your track speed is irrelevant to the rest of us because of the you have changed two of the variables you'd had agreed were considered as constants?
Now add in your White Knuckle exhaust, the loss of 60 lbs. of weight from other areas and now you have thrown two more wild cards into the theorum.
I'm telling you, you're basing your hypothesis on junk science to say your track speed is higher than our track speed so therefore your sled is superior to ours.
I'm sorry, I'm not lowering myself to being drug down the road to suffering from "Track Speed Envy".
Like I said before. Sure it's probably a good indicator of progress you're making in the cluthcing of your own sled. If you change setups and get 5 mph of track speed climbing; great.
There are just too many variables and like snow condition, temps, rider weight, ELEVATION, ect. to say what works in your neck of the woods applies universally to everyone. Nice try though. Powder Blue
Where in ANY post that I have EVER made on this forum have I said my sled was superior? That's just not my nature. Oh wait you're right I JOKE with people on here constantly that my sled is superior because it is Blue.
For the record my track speed did NOT go down with the 159 it went up. The 159 only weighed about 1 lb. more, but I also added extroverts which allows me to run the track looser. aka less binding. Gearing down did not come untill later.
As for aggreeing to things being constants......... I said that the GENERAL assumption is that a person is running a 2X151 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED!! I then stated I have a 159. That statement would qualify as OTHERWISE STATED.
Weight of my sled? If you measure track speed in the manner that we are suggesting you would realize that sled weight (other than rotating mass) does NOT have as dramatic effect on TRACK speed as it does on VEHICLE speed. Hence one of the points I have been trying to make.
I'm starting to find it extremely humorous that the things you point out ie. snow conditions, temps, rider weight, elevation, sled weight, etc... make more of a differrence on vehicle speed than they do on track speed or even RPMs. You are pointing out all the right variables but you need to really stop and think about what is effected most by those variables.
I have NEVER said that my setup is the best and will work universally. AGAIN that is NOT in my nature. You are trying to put words in my mouth. NO where in this post have I even given my setup, much less said it applies to anyone or anywhere else. On occasions when I have given my setup I have always done it from the stand point of "this seems to be working for me, but might not for you". Suggestions ONLY.
You mentioned LAMBASTING earlier. Who is Lambasting who? You have resorted to trying to put words in my mouth. All a person has to do is read this thread to see that I have not said the things you accuse me of. Disagree with me, I don't care, but don't accuse me of saying things I have not said.
You go measure vehicle speed and I'll measure track speed and rpm's.
I'll see you at the top.
For the record my track speed did NOT go down with the 159 it went up. The 159 only weighed about 1 lb. more, but I also added extroverts which allows me to run the track looser. aka less binding. Gearing down did not come untill later.
As for aggreeing to things being constants......... I said that the GENERAL assumption is that a person is running a 2X151 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED!! I then stated I have a 159. That statement would qualify as OTHERWISE STATED.
Weight of my sled? If you measure track speed in the manner that we are suggesting you would realize that sled weight (other than rotating mass) does NOT have as dramatic effect on TRACK speed as it does on VEHICLE speed. Hence one of the points I have been trying to make.
I'm starting to find it extremely humorous that the things you point out ie. snow conditions, temps, rider weight, elevation, sled weight, etc... make more of a differrence on vehicle speed than they do on track speed or even RPMs. You are pointing out all the right variables but you need to really stop and think about what is effected most by those variables.
I have NEVER said that my setup is the best and will work universally. AGAIN that is NOT in my nature. You are trying to put words in my mouth. NO where in this post have I even given my setup, much less said it applies to anyone or anywhere else. On occasions when I have given my setup I have always done it from the stand point of "this seems to be working for me, but might not for you". Suggestions ONLY.
You mentioned LAMBASTING earlier. Who is Lambasting who? You have resorted to trying to put words in my mouth. All a person has to do is read this thread to see that I have not said the things you accuse me of. Disagree with me, I don't care, but don't accuse me of saying things I have not said.
You go measure vehicle speed and I'll measure track speed and rpm's.
I'll see you at the top.
Viper34
Pro
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 138
That is exactly why finding the best balance between track speed and traction is gonna give your machine it's best potential or best vehicle speed. That was my point earlier..if your just going after track speed..then throw on a 1" paddle track, your track speed will be very high, but your vehicle speed will be very low..hence your lack of traction giving you a poor track speed to traction ratio.
I think everyone gets confused when the word "clutching" is mentioned. All a clutch is, is a CVT system..a transmission. Making this simple, think of it this way. Me and you line our trucks up on a snow covered road to race. When we both take off, you punch it, and I slowly give it throttle..who is gonna win??...your tire speed is higher!!..but it isn't matching the traction available..my tire speed is very low, but it matches the traction available..obviously my vehicle speed will be higher, and I will win..make sense? A snowmobile is the same way, except the upshift is controlled by the clutching system(transmission) That is why a snowmobile uses a CVT system..and probably always will. SO, that is why track speed means nothing standing alone in a conversation. First thing I notice about a good climbing mountain sleed is the momentum he carries up the hill, how fast his vehicle speed is..I dont say, wow..look how fast his track is spinning
I think everyone gets confused when the word "clutching" is mentioned. All a clutch is, is a CVT system..a transmission. Making this simple, think of it this way. Me and you line our trucks up on a snow covered road to race. When we both take off, you punch it, and I slowly give it throttle..who is gonna win??...your tire speed is higher!!..but it isn't matching the traction available..my tire speed is very low, but it matches the traction available..obviously my vehicle speed will be higher, and I will win..make sense? A snowmobile is the same way, except the upshift is controlled by the clutching system(transmission) That is why a snowmobile uses a CVT system..and probably always will. SO, that is why track speed means nothing standing alone in a conversation. First thing I notice about a good climbing mountain sleed is the momentum he carries up the hill, how fast his vehicle speed is..I dont say, wow..look how fast his track is spinning
Viper34
Pro
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 138
Spray- You can't go wrong by only checking track speed and engine rpm, because you probably have no way besides feeling to know how much vehicle speed you have. But, I would check a wide range of engine rpm's and track speeds, until you find which combinations work best, I guarantee if you do that, you'll find the best balance.
I found the RX-1 engine climbs best around 9,800-10,000.
I found the RX-1 engine climbs best around 9,800-10,000.
I have tried a few diferrent combinations....... Most of which have been centered around the stock setup. I tried Sled Nazi's setup as well, but for some reason it just did not work all that good for me. Hartman liked his setup well enough that he is selling it, but no go fo me. Because of some of the modding I have done I have some diferrent variables than some of the other guys on here. I will get to tweak some more this season as the White Knuckle I added raised my RPMs some and I will be adding the Holtzman CV springs that are SUPPOSED to raise RPMs further. We'll see how they work........
It's a never ending battle!!!
It's a never ending battle!!!
