2013 rmk vs pro

[sledneck_03]

Well what's everyone's thoughts on what will be missing from the rmk to set it cheaper then the pro? Will the rmk have a belt drive? Will it have the carbon fiber chassis components? Will it have the bonded suspension parts? Boards?

Let's say it has the belt drive, suspension parts, seat with one piece cover, boards and everything else that makes the rmk different from the pro. But no carbon fiber chassis.

I could also see a 155 rmk shift that is basically the exact sled that the 2012 rmk is now with no decals. All black and new serial numbers. So old arms, old seat, old chain case, old boards.

 

[milehighassassin]

I think it will get the boards, I see no belt drive, no new a-arms, no new seat and obviously different shocks.

 

[veritascs]

Or maybe it will have the same differences the 2011 and 2012s had, which was shocks and cooling?

 

[sledneck_03]

A bit off topic, but if the rmk dosent have all the new parts I would like the assault to have the bulk head cooler (if it doesn't already) and come in a 163" hahah I doubt that will happen.

I love my bulkhead cooler on my rmk, I hate running scratchers, well I don't but me wife doesn't like following me on the trail.

 

[phatty]

no belt drive, different handle bars, coolers, and shox.

 

[AndrettiDog]

no belt drive, different handle bars, coolers, and shox.

Agreed. Maybe no new A-arms.

Just think Phatty, not long ago you were not a big fan of the Pro!

 

[mountainhorse]

My Guess....

Yes Running boards

No new arms

Shock will be the basic RYDE-FX

No Carbon Tubes

No Belt drive or lightweight driveshaft.

Bet it gets the new seat though.

Handlebars and controls same as last year basic but maybe new throttle block cause it will fit the old bars.

Bulkhead cooler.



.

 

[JSun]

I bet it has the belt drive. No carbon fiber over-structure. It will get the boards and seat.

Joe

 

[polaris dude]

I bet its a dragon!

 

[mynewuseddoo]

Not sure if anyone read anything put out buy Polaris in the last few days but they stated that "these upgrades will be exclusively available on the Pro RMK". I'm thinking that means the RMK should remain the same for next year.

 

[B00nd0ck3r4lif]

who gives a chit?

 

[Ski-Dont89]

who gives a chit?

Obviously a lot of people do. Why do you think this thread was started? Lets try and stay on topic.

 

[phatty]

Agreed. Maybe no new A-arms.

Just think Phatty, not long ago you were not a big fan of the Pro!

lol i never said i wasn't a fan, i owned a 2011, and now a 2012. Looks like i will probably add a 2013 to that list as well haha

 

[Super A]

Okay, if the RMK is not going to have the belt drive and the PRO will, will the advantage of the belt drive put a Pro 600 on the same level as the RMK 800?

Your speculation is welcomed.

A

 

[akgiauque]

Okay, if the RMK is not going to have the belt drive and the PRO will, will the advantage of the belt drive put a Pro 600 on the same level as the RMK 800?
Your speculation is welcomed.
A

My riding partner and I were talking about this. We decided that if the belt drive was as much as 5% more efficient, that said a 125 HP 600 would be about 131 hp. Not even the the same as ball park as a 800. The belt would need to give 25% to 30% more efficient power deliver in order to be on par with a chain drive 800, That would mean a 800 belt drive would be close to an 200 hp. I do not think that the loss of power is even close to 5% more like 1-2%.
The 2012 800 does well but the weight loss and lower rotational energy is where the weight & power gains are made. Not having a centripital force moving forward on one side sled allows for the increase in efficiency of the motor. More energy to the clutch because it is moving a lower mass (chain and gear weight).
I am thinking there may be some interesting balance issues with a larger centripital force (clutch) on one side of the sled and a smaller one on the other side (belt and pulley). In the past the chain & gears balanced this force. If it has not been balanced more stress may be put on the lower bearings. This depends on the mass difference, it may not be significant enough to matter over 2500 mile of use.

 

[Super A]

My riding partner and I were talking about this. We decided that if the belt drive was as much as 5% more efficient, that said a 125 HP 600 would be about 131 hp. Not even the the same as ball park as a 800.

I'll agree with your numbers but the RMK 800 (non pro) should be approx 25-27 lbs more. So does the increase of power to the track and weight difference close that gap?

 

[winchester]

My riding partner and I were talking about this. We decided that if the belt drive was as much as 5% more efficient, that said a 125 HP 600 would be about 131 hp. Not even the the same as ball park as a 800. The belt would need to give 25% to 30% more efficient power deliver in order to be on par with a chain drive 800, That would mean a 800 belt drive would be close to an 200 hp. I do not think that the loss of power is even close to 5% more like 1-2%.
The 2012 800 does well but the weight loss and lower rotational energy is where the weight & power gains are made. Not having a centripital force moving forward on one side sled allows for the increase in efficiency of the motor. More energy to the clutch because it is moving a lower mass (chain and gear weight).
I am thinking there may be some interesting balance issues with a larger centripital force (clutch) on one side of the sled and a smaller one on the other side (belt and pulley). In the past the chain & gears balanced this force. If it has not been balanced more stress may be put on the lower bearings. This depends on the mass difference, it may not be significant enough to matter over 2500 mile of use.

I have to question if there really is any efficiency advantage with a belt other than the lack of drag by not having to pull it thru an oil bath every revolution as is required by a chain. It is a fact that the big horse power super bikes/sport bikes/motocross bikes still run chains where as the everyday cruisers run cog belts or shaft drive. I think the main advantage is smooth delivery of torque and durability. Oh and the obvious weight savings because of the lack of oil/chaincase structure.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Mikew5j]

I have to question if there really is any efficiency advantage with a belt other than the lack of drag by not having to pull it thru an oil bath every revolution as is required by a chain. It is a fact that the big horse power super bikes/sport bikes/motocross bikes still run chains where as the everyday cruisers run cog belts or shaft drive. I think the main advantage is smooth delivery of torque and durability. Oh and the obvious weight savings because of the lack of oil/chaincase structure.

Thoughts anyone?

It's not just about resistance but also rotational mass. A steel chain and solid steel sprockets vs fiber belt and aluminum sprockets. The lighter belt drive will take less energy to accelerate than the heavier steel chain drive. I do agree that the belt drive will provide a smoother delivery. The lucky buggers that have had a chance to drive the 2013's have said they are more lively. The question is how much of that is because of the belt drive, the lighter weight, and any engine tweaks.

 

[Super A]

I have to question if there really is any efficiency advantage with a belt other than the lack of drag by not having to pull it thru an oil bath every revolution as is required by a chain. It is a fact that the big horse power super bikes/sport bikes/motocross bikes still run chains where as the everyday cruisers run cog belts or shaft drive. I think the main advantage is smooth delivery of torque and durability. Oh and the obvious weight savings because of the lack of oil/chaincase structure.

Thoughts anyone?

I would guess the sprockets for the belt drive are bigger and lighter in diameter and should be easier to turn, plus the chain in the chaincase has to drag against a tensioner, were the belt has no tensioner, maybe the only way to tell is a track dyno or the old butt dyno.