bholmlate
Expert
mtdream
You let me down. I was banking on that 15%-20% efficency. With all the rest of the improvments I have done to my sled, i was figuring that with an additional 20% improvment I would have like a 140% more efficient sled then when i started. Of course that is using the numbers that all the afftermarket companies are using to sell the parts that i bought from them.
Even it is was half that it still is a pretty cool little package. With less moving parts, less friction, and less weight it would be interesignt to know for sure what the numbers are. It will be interesing to see if CMX will drop their price on their system now that a factory is offering their own version of it. Please make a few turns in that white stuff for those of us who are still waiting for enough snow to ride on. We are SO hurting for snow right now.
You let me down. I was banking on that 15%-20% efficency. With all the rest of the improvments I have done to my sled, i was figuring that with an additional 20% improvment I would have like a 140% more efficient sled then when i started. Of course that is using the numbers that all the afftermarket companies are using to sell the parts that i bought from them.
Even it is was half that it still is a pretty cool little package. With less moving parts, less friction, and less weight it would be interesignt to know for sure what the numbers are. It will be interesing to see if CMX will drop their price on their system now that a factory is offering their own version of it. Please make a few turns in that white stuff for those of us who are still waiting for enough snow to ride on. We are SO hurting for snow right now.
Nikolai
TY 4 Stroke God
I'd bet money the belt drive is less than a 5% gain in efficiency over the chain. No way in hell is it 15-20%, that is HUGE.
otis
Expert
If made correctly it could really drop about 10 lbs and substantial rotating mass. I'd take it in a minute if offered from the factory. Retro fitting an existing sled loses most of the gains. If the sled was designed around a belt drive system it could be a great thing.
Otis
Otis
bholmlate said:
Sorry to let you down
I do not see cmx dropping prices, their customers are not looking for money savings,mother are looking for best of everything....and they get it,many pay for it!!
otis said:
Complete Polaris chaincase is 9.14 pounds.
ruffryder
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
Do you know how much the Yamaha chaincase is? With reverse? I know it won't be the same as the inside yamaha case is built into the aluminum side panels..
No I don't remember off the top of my head. I have a non reverse one out I can weigh and I will have my reverse one out next week.
ruffryder said:you could of just put your big boy pants on and said you made the numbers up instead of getting defensive and throwing insults..mtdream said:To busy having fun to worry...riding is way more fun...but since you have just also admitted you have nothing better to do than argue...I guess I win...especially since I am out riding...
read about belt drive systems somewhere, cannot remember...dont care enough to look...my confidence is not wrapped up in winning an internet babble session...
if you read with intent to listen you learn...if you read with intent to find flaw, you will...and get yoru little seratonin shot...
happy riding
Hey Ruff... I have ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON to stick up for MT because frankly - I can't stand him... but here you go - right out of AmSnow Mag
"The complete system - lightweight brake, extruded drive shaft and maintenance-free belt drive in place of a chaincase - reduces sled weight by more than 6.5 pounds, and provides a 21% reduction in rotational inertia for enhanced efficiency and acceleration"
http://cs.amsnow.com/snocs/blogs/ne...m_campaign=SNO_News_120214_final&utm_content=
I'm just sayin...
beeze455
Expert
ruffryder said:
It is more of a number wording thing. Marketing people love it and investors with money do it all the time too.
"15-20% more efficient"
You have a 150hp engine and lets say the chain case loses 5% because of all the parts and fluid. You have now lost 7.5 hp.
You now have a new fancy belt drive that is 20% more efficient or 1.5hp. 200% more efficient would 15hp.
beeze455
Expert
Good Info here guys 
makes a lot more sense now!
makes a lot more sense now!ruffryder
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
I have noted that polaris has not stated any efficiency gains.. which is odd. The 21% reduction in rotational inertia only comes into play during acceleration and deceleration. Inertia plays no role in steady state conditions, therefore, the 21% reduction in inertia has NO effect on the efficiency of the drive system.MotoPsycho said:
Kind of like putting a massive clutch on the engine. You didn't change the efficiency of the motor.. but you did change its dynamic performance, it accelerates slower, but has more resistance to rpm changes during steady state conditions...
FYI, I do dynamic simulations of power systems for utilities... so some of this is based on knowledge. The rest is right out of my
ruffryder
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
I am not sure that applies, as that assumes transmission system, axles systems, differential systems...beeze455 said:
A simple transmission has a many more complicated gear to gear interfaces that further reduce efficiency compared to a simple gear to gear drive, or gear and chain, or gear and belt system. Everything I have seen puts them all pretty close in the mid to upper 95% efficiency range.
