Wondering about Real World Experiences so far using a Reverse Angle Helix

[SUC_doo]

Don,
Why do you want to slow the sled down going from a straight 35 to the 33-35? Taking away helix will not make it quicker, but slow it down and it will hurt the mileage too over the straight 35.

You want faster? Put a stock muffler tune in it at the least. I know a guy that can help you out there , I'm heading out tomorrow to put one in Josh's new Winder for his trip this week to northern WI.

I was def faster out of the hole on bare ice with the 33/35. Mileage hurt some for sure when trail driven.

 

[WVTurboLTX]

I was def faster out of the hole on bare ice with the 33/35. Mileage hurt some for sure when trail driven.

But it was snappier corner to corner?

 

[VX1R]

But it was snappier corner to corner?

I've been wondering the same thing. Interesting comment on the lower fuel mileage when trail driven.

I wonder if everyone else has been experiencing a drop in fuel mileage on the trails with a reverse angle helix?

I guess it stands to reason that if you're loading the motor more at lower track speeds with the reverse angle helix running a shallower angle at the start that the motor is going to be spinning a higher rpm before the secondary starts to downshift.

 

[Never Satisfied]

You are not loading the motor more with a shallower helix, you are shifting slower. Also it will back shift progressively faster as the lower the angle the quicker the backshift.

 

[vodoo child]

I've been wondering the same thing. Interesting comment on the lower fuel mileage when trail driven.

I wonder if everyone else has been experiencing a drop in fuel mileage on the trails with a reverse angle helix?

I guess it stands to reason that if you're loading the motor more at lower track speeds with the reverse angle helix running a shallower angle at the start that the motor is going to be spinning a higher rpm before the secondary starts to downshift.

On that 200 mile day on mine. I averaged 15.2 mpg on my first full up. Is that good, bad or average? Like I said, we rode in poor conditions most of the day at various speeds. Next week in Maine will tell how the setup really works.

 

[Snowaddict]

On that 200 mile day on mine. I averaged 15.2 mpg on my first full up. Is that good, bad or average? Like I said, we rode in poor conditions most of the day at various speeds. Next week in Maine will tell how the setup really works.

I would say that's pretty good.

 

[Never Satisfied]

Way better than I have ever gotten! When running hard with 800 2 smokers I get just a hair better than they do, looking for gas at 100 miles.

 

[Keith Schmitz]

I was def faster out of the hole on bare ice with the 33/35. Mileage hurt some for sure when trail driven.

I have/had a stock RTX with full TPI kit & 35/39 helix. I went 112 miles on a tank with no fuel warning on. Now I’ll grant you that it was an easy day on the throttle. As far as slowing the sled down with the reverse angle helix...i just don’t see it. I’ve run 122-123 on the SPEEDO. I had lots of help from NOS-PRO, but the sled rips!
NOS-PRO put an EVO stage 3 tune in it this week, so, now I’ll get to have some real fun. CHEERS!

 

[XP123]

I've been wondering the same thing. Interesting comment on the lower fuel mileage when trail driven.

I wonder if everyone else has been experiencing a drop in fuel mileage on the trails with a reverse angle helix?

I guess it stands to reason that if you're loading the motor more at lower track speeds with the reverse angle helix running a shallower angle at the start that the motor is going to be spinning a higher rpm before the secondary starts to downshift.

The reason you are seeing lower mpg readings is the shallower helix is holding the sled from upshifting resulting in higher mid range rpm's. What I didn't like about the 33/35 helix was when trail riding it would downshift too quickly and then try to upshift then downshift again. This was all happening at lower rpm's and I felt I would prefer if it would just upshift quicker and hold a steady rpm. It was too herky jerky for me.

 

[Jafo1970]

I ran a 35/39 helix with TP clutching when I was running my evo tune and would get 15.5mpg running with my 800etecs bud and they were getting 12-13. The 35/39 helix gave me about 1 to 1.5mpg better than the straight 35.

 

[XP123]

I ran a 35/39 helix with TP clutching when I was running my evo tune and would get 15.5mpg running with my 800etecs bud and they were getting 12-13. The 35/39 helix gave me about 1 to 1.5mpg better than the straight 35.

I'm thinking it had to do with the steeper finishing angle. How were your WOT rpm's? Were they lower than stock?

 

[Jafo1970]

I'm thinking it had to do with the steeper finishing angle. How were your WOT rpm's? Were they lower than stock?

Ran straight to 9000 and stayed there till 129mph. Never ran it more than 1500' or so. Ran 122mph in 1000'. Stock secondary spring shimmed. Wish I could get my new setup to work that good.

 

[ROCKERDAN]

35/39 is a far cry from 33/35. You are riding always on MORE helix then stock, where the 33/35 you start shallower and at low speeds are shallower.

Reverse angles have shift characteristics I do not like at all. They(flash) overev initially.

 

[Jafo1970]

35/39 is a far cry from 33/35. You are riding always on MORE helix then stock, where the 33/35 you start shallower and at low speeds are shallower.

Reverse angles have shift characteristics I do not like at all. They(flash) overev initially.

Possibly, with my softer evo tune last year it didn't over rev and I loved the way it ran, but yes this year with the hurricane 290r it did. Evo redid there tunes this year to pump up the middle. The reverse angles were a bandaid last year.

 

[Snowaddict]

I'm thinking it had to do with the steeper finishing angle. How were your WOT rpm's? Were they lower than stock?

I have the TP clutching with 35/39 also and my RPMS have always been a tad low.

Ran straight to 9000 and stayed there till 129mph. Never ran it more than 1500' or so. Ran 122mph in 1000'. Stock secondary spring shimmed. Wish I could get my new setup to work that good.

Did you ever have to adjust weights in TP set up at all to get to this?

I'm going to be trying taking out tip weight to up the RPMs (thanks to @jonlafon1.) Without the TP orange secondary spring I was at 8500. With it was at 8700. Have only ever seen 108 on Speedo. Some of it's probably my fat arse , but I still should see more regardless.