Issues with Axys aluminum a-arms

kanedog · Nov 15, 2015

If you ride smart, with a decent base and adequate snow coverage the stock arms will serve you well. IMO / FWIW[/QUOTE]

That's the the dumbest statement I have ever read on Snowest.
"Ride smart, with a decent base and adequate snow coverage." Pffffffft.

Sheetmetalfab · Nov 15, 2015

kanedog said:
If you ride smart, with a decent base and adequate snow coverage the stock arms will serve you well. IMO / FWIW

That's the the dumbest statement I have ever read on Snowest.
"Ride smart, with a decent base and adequate snow coverage." Pffffffft.[/QUOTE]

Lol i ride as often and whenever i can.
Snowpack or dust on crust.

Devilmanak · Nov 16, 2015

I am fully aware of how crumple zones and such work. My question is why would Polaris do this in 2016 and never before? My information was that they were breaking bulkheads during testing until they built the failure point into the arm.
Which means that the bulkhead must be a weak part that they are trying to protect?
Just my observations.
I bet a beer that the arms are revised with a new part number THIS year and built slightly stronger.
I know guys that are going to go through an arm every ride, middle of winter or not.
That being said, I very rarely hit things, I am painfully careful, I am seriously considering buying one of these suckas after riding one yesterday.

Devilmanak · Nov 16, 2015

LoudHandle said:
Why did / does Skidoo make their S&M modules so fragile that looking at the sled wrong bends them?

/ FWIW

That is not the same at all, weak modules are not a solution to avoiding frame/major damage, bending a module IS frame/major damage. Weak modules are poor engineering in my opinion. Arms should always break /bend before the frame does, I just think Polaris went a bit too reserved this year on the arms.
Last year we were considering cutting or drilling Doo arms to make a weak point to avoid frame damage.
The whole module design is a bad one, and it is outdated badly, well over ten years old. Hopefully my Doodoos will have a new design next year, more like the Polaris one.

2XM3 · Nov 16, 2015

umm I may have to tig a diagonal tube in the lower arm as a brace, or just buy a aftermarket set

AKFULLTHROTTLE · Nov 16, 2015

I went through about 5 lowers on my 11 Pro before buying a 13. Some I believe were a decent hit, others were normal trail pounding. Never had one go on the 13 and I took some hard hits through the years. Now onto the 16 and time may tell. Either way I am going to ride, thats why I have the sled!

Allstate also has my back... I have already took two hard hits to my Axys powder coated arms with no bend. With all that said I am going to get some Zbroz as I know how hard it is to pick these up mid season and I will have my stockers as a back up. I do not want any down time this season as the snow fall has been here and there the last couple of years. This will be my first season using after market A-arms so the test is on!

LPIdaho · Nov 16, 2015

Devilmanak said:
I am fully aware of how crumple zones and such work. My question is why would Polaris do this in 2016 and never before? My information was that they were breaking bulkheads during testing until they built the failure point into the arm.
Which means that the bulkhead must be a weak part that they are trying to protect?
Just my observations.
I bet a beer that the arms are revised with a new part number THIS year and built slightly stronger.
I know guys that are going to go through an arm every ride, middle of winter or not.
That being said, I very rarely hit things, I am painfully careful, I am seriously considering buying one of these suckas after riding one yesterday.

I will gladly take you up on that bet!
Think of it this way. How much work is it to replace an a-arm? How much work is it to replace a bulkhead or tunnel? Doesn't necessarily mean the bulkhead is weak.

Devilmanak · Nov 16, 2015

I think if you read my posts, you will understand. There is a line between an arm failing and a totaled sled. There were no issues with that line last year, guys hit something, thought they totaled their sled, found no damage. This year, guys hit something, figure NO damage (like I saw yesterday) and end up with a $200 bill. (The rider didn't even think to look for damage, I looked based on this post.)
SO why has the line changed this year, there has to be a reason?? Does Polaris have a fragile bulkhead that they discovered after the molds were made, did they screw up on how weak to make the failsafe arms, ???
Not going to argue it any more, we will see what happens. For the most part, the guys that are actually riding are the ones posting failures, the ones that are not are blaming the ones that are for riding.
If I owe you a beer, sweet, we can have a few.

I am going out Wed with a guy who is VERY aggressive, I am sure he will go through multiple arms this year.

OnlyPolaris · Nov 16, 2015

Just an FYI you can buy both the upper and lower ball joints from polaris separate. if you look up the 2016 assault rmk with the steel a-arms they are listed. exact same joint. 7061219 for the upper joint and 2204229 for the lower.

mountainhorse · Nov 17, 2015

My thoughts on this concern with "sacrificial" a-arms... bumpers etc...

I have yet to see a rash of failed bulkheads from either of these parts in the ProRide-Mtn sleds with a similar cast bulkhead...yes, some wrinkled tunnels from strange hits...but some of them still happened with stock glued arms that failed...I have yet to hear of one from a ski-hit that was tunnel-braced when new or in good shape.

Something to ponder.

.

Titanium 375 · Nov 17, 2015

_+_+w

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Teth-Air · Nov 17, 2015

So just until the snow is better, I put a set of 2014 lowers on my 2016. The plastic bushings from the 14 need a little trimming to clear the mounting nuts but other than that they fit right on.

tuneman · Nov 18, 2015

I stopped in at the local dealer yesterday to have a look at these arms. My engineer mind, that deals with beam bending issues regularly, tells me that Zbroz and Alt Impact are gonna be busy this year. The design of that lower arm is a major fail. Amazed Polaris didn't catch it. I've got money that says Polaris does an update to the tool before the season is out.

Timbre · Nov 18, 2015

tuneman said:
I stopped in at the local dealer yesterday to have a look at these arms. My engineer mind, that deals with beam bending issues regularly, tells me that Zbroz and Alt Impact are gonna be busy this year. The design of that lower arm is a major fail. Amazed Polaris didn't catch it. I've got money that says Polaris does an update to the tool before the season is out.

As far as the design being a "major fail" . . what are the problems you see, and how would you suggest fixing it?

shep · Nov 18, 2015

I just picked up a 2016 pro 155 (wife) and a 2016 pro 163 (mine)
Hope these a arms hold up !!!!

snowmobiler · Nov 19, 2015

tuneman · Nov 19, 2015

Timbre said:
As far as the design being a "major fail" . . what are the problems you see, and how would you suggest fixing it?

Thanks for calling me out on this. I hate it when guys post general statements with nothing to back it up, and I went and did just that.

The top arms are well built. Nothing wrong with those. But, for the lowers, it looks like they tried to build a fail point in right where you're seeing them bend on previous pics. At that location, there's just a thin section of aluminum. Right where the brundt of a force happens, especially when a ski is turned. That's quite a load on just a thin piece of aluminum. If they would have at least made an 'I' beam or 'T' there, it would probably be fine. A tubular structure, like the old arms, would be significantly stronger. Maybe they did their initial testing out of some premium billet and are now sweating it with these forged arms? Seems maybe the design was based upon a forged control arm of a car, which doesn't see nearly the side loads that a snowmobile arm sees? I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it if there's a bit of scrambling going on about this over at Polaris at the moment.

Easiest fix would be to go aftermarket, but maybe you could tie into the rear mount with a rod and connect to the sway bar mount? Somebody will probably come up with something.

CO Powder · Nov 19, 2015

It is a pretty sad looking design. The front part of the arm is pretty beefy but man, there is no material near the rear mount, like they intentionally made it extra weak. The rib goes away, and they definitely bend right there, mine did.

Mine wasn't as bad as the one in the pics, about half that bent. With nothing to really loose I heated that sucker with a torch and straightened it out. Made it through a 20+ mile ride the other day. Shows no obvious signs of impending failure, no more than it did before I bent it anyway...

boondocker97 · Nov 19, 2015

tuneman said:
Thanks for calling me out on this. I hate it when guys post general statements with nothing to back it up, and I went and did just that.

The top arms are well built. Nothing wrong with those. But, for the lowers, it looks like they tried to build a fail point in right where you're seeing them bend on previous pics. At that location, there's just a thin section of aluminum. Right where the brundt of a force happens, especially when a ski is turned. That's quite a load on just a thin piece of aluminum. If they would have at least made an 'I' beam or 'T' there, it would probably be fine. A tubular structure, like the old arms, would be significantly stronger. Maybe they did their initial testing out of some premium billet and are now sweating it with these forged arms? Seems maybe the design was based upon a forged control arm of a car, which doesn't see nearly the side loads that a snowmobile arm sees? I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it if there's a bit of scrambling going on about this over at Polaris at the moment.

Easiest fix would be to go aftermarket, but maybe you could tie into the rear mount with a rod and connect to the sway bar mount? Somebody will probably come up with something.

After going back and looking at the picture I'd agree with you. Cross section area is enough to handle the tension load on that part of the arm under normal suspension motion, but once it's put into compression from a ski twist or side hit it's moment of inertia value is too low to resist buckling (different calculation from straight up compression strength). Especially having the "rounded end" at the a-arm attachment (same cross section would have twice the buckling capacity if both ends were fixed and not allowed to rotate). Only way to really fix it without adding weight is change the cross sectional shape, which is not really possible without changing the arm.

sledneck322 · Nov 19, 2015

I wonder how much of the components (upper/lower ball joints, bushings, mounting hardware...etc) are available through McMaster car? Dealer told me same thing about backordered parts.

Issues with Axys aluminum a-arms

Undefeated mountain clutching champ of the world.

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

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Similar threads