LOOKS LIKE SOME INTERNAL PARTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED FOR 2017

mountainhorse · Jun 28, 2016

Now...this does not mean that it has been any kind of a big change.

But...

Looking at the fiche the piston, rings, crankshaft and a few other parts have changed in part numbers.

The cylinders, head, injectors have remained the same.

The one that I cant get over...that hasn't changed... Is the aluminum driveshaft for the QuickDrive™ sleds... The collar is still there. An enduring bandaid. I'd like to see a re-design of this to reflect solid engineering.

Heck, the weight difference from the alu with collar to the steel design is not that big of a diff... if they cant get the alu shaft to perform... work on getting the hydroformed steel shaft and driver assy a little lighter... my 2¢

.

sledheader · Jun 28, 2016

Any Idea on what has changed with the piston rings and crank? Will be looking at a top end this next spring if not before and it would be nice to know whether to go with the '16 pistons or if there would be anything to gain using the updated numbers?

Seems odd that those would change because I didn't hear of any issues in the '16s

mountainhorse · Jun 28, 2016

Nope... and we'll probably not know until well into the season.

If I find out anything before then.. I'll post it up here. I invite anyone else with solid information to do the same.

.

Pro-8250 · Jun 28, 2016

mountainhorse said:
Now...this does not mean that it has been any kind of a big change.

But...

Looking at the fiche the piston, rings, crankshaft and a few other parts have changed in part numbers.

The cylinders, head, injectors have remained the same.

The one that I cant get over...that hasn't changed... Is the aluminum driveshaft for the QuickDrive™ sleds... The collar is still there. An enduring bandaid. I'd like to see a re-design of this to reflect solid engineering.

Heck, the weight difference from the alu with collar to the steel design is not that big of a diff... if they cant get the alu shaft to perform... work on getting the hydroformed steel shaft and driver assy a little lighter... my 2¢

.

I don't get the drive shaft either. It's not like they haven't had enough time.

volcano buster · Jun 29, 2016

Heard an old saying once:

If it works, don't fix it.

Still seems rather sloppy to me though.

FlatLand_J · Jun 29, 2016

New motor is holding up so well Polaris figured they'd see if they could screw it up.

RMK-King · Jun 29, 2016

Maybe they changed part suppliers creating different part #'s?

Sheetmetalfab · Jun 30, 2016

Sledmax said:
Maybe they changed part suppliers creating different part #'s?

Often the case........
We'll see.

ullose272 · Jul 3, 2016

Honestly dont see an issue with the collar. It works

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Snowmow · Jul 3, 2016

ullose272 said:
Honestly dont see an issue with the collar. It works

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's an engineering F-up that was fixed with Afro-engineering. No reason that the issue shouldn't have been resolved at the point of
Engineering and manufacturing by now.

mountainhorse · Jul 3, 2016

ullose272 said:
Honestly dont see an issue with the collar. It works

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

What is the advantage of a light aluminum shaft with a heavy aluminum collar?

IMO... Polaris should make a strong light shaft... with no bandaids. Steel or aluminum.

The collar, by design is an afterthought... and a departure from the intent of the shaft design.

The engineers that put the quickdrive together have to be shaking their head at this enduring patch.

LPIdaho · Jul 5, 2016

mountainhorse said:
What is the advantage of a light aluminum shaft with a heavy aluminum collar?

IMO... Polaris should make a strong light shaft... with no bandaids. Steel or aluminum.

The collar, by design is an afterthought... and a departure from the intent of the shaft design.

The engineers that put the quickdrive together have to be shaking their head at this enduring patch.

Until they go to a 8mm belt they almost have to keep the collar. It's not because the design/mfg issues haven't been resolved but because with the 11mm belt that join in the driveshaft is the 'weak-link' in the drivetrain and thus not the ideal failure mode. A bonded aluminum driveshaft is a viable design but needs to come with a complete redesign of the Quick Drive system

tdblakes · Jul 5, 2016

mountainhorse said:
What is the advantage of a light aluminum shaft with a heavy aluminum collar?

IMO... Polaris should make a strong light shaft... with no bandaids. Steel or aluminum.

The collar, by design is an afterthought... and a departure from the intent of the shaft design.

The engineers that put the quickdrive together have to be shaking their head at this enduring patch.

Unfortunately engineers don't always get the final say where the $$ flows...

$$ collar < $$ re-tool/redesign new shaft...
Therefore we still have a collar and will likely keep one until a next gen QD & driveshaft comes out where this can latch onto a project with extra capital funds to spend...

tdbaugha · Jul 6, 2016

tdblakes said:
Unfortunately engineers never get the final say where the $$ flows...

$$ collar < $$ re-tool/redesign new shaft...
Therefore we still have a collar and will likely keep one until a next gen QD & driveshaft comes out where this can latch onto a project with extra capital funds to spend...

Fixed it for ya

Reg2view · Jul 6, 2016

They get to continue marketing a lightweight driveshaft to the idiots who believe it, and spend no money engineering a new one. Marketing and Finance trump Engineering.

And don't discount this - if there are any lawsuits filed or threatened for an injury due to a failed driveshaft (loss of braking, e.g.), the lawyers will be advocating no further design change, which could be perceived as a further admission of a known problem. I say further - since the collar itself is at least a partial admission, but a fix that was provided by poo since 13 and has been proven generally effective.

Timbre · Jul 6, 2016

Though a little "makeshift", the fix (collar) seems to have worked well over the years. I do prefer the 3" track on the AXYS (with the chain case), and the driveshaft that comes with it.

richracer1 · Jul 9, 2016

Here's the low down on the '16 steel vs. '16 "lite weight" drive shafts.

I bought a new steel shaft for my Axys so I can run a different track and still have the original shaft for the 2.6.

Original shaft w/OEM collar has Avid 2.86P 8T drivers installed
Weight 8lbs 8oz.

Steel shaft has Avid 3.0P 7T drivers installed (not the center extrovert kind) Weight 8lbs 9oz.

ZRP Engineering · Jul 9, 2016

The steel shaft also has slightly less rotational inertia so it actually doesn't take anymore work from your motor to spin it

Timbre · Jul 10, 2016

richracer1 said:
Original shaft w/OEM collar has Avid 2.86P 8T drivers installed
Weight 8lbs 8oz.

Steel shaft has Avid 3.0P 7T drivers installed (not the center extrovert kind) Weight 8lbs 9oz.

So the "lightweight" shaft is just 1 oz. lighter in weight . . interesting

Sheetmetalfab · Jul 10, 2016

Timbre said:
So the "lightweight" shaft is just 1 oz. lighter in weight . . interesting

7 tooth 3.0 pitch drivers are larger than 7 tooth 2.86 drivers.......
A small difference.

LOOKS LIKE SOME INTERNAL PARTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED FOR 2017

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Super-Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads