2015 Release... What's coming our way on the 17th?

[ak]

Is that marine boat engine? Like the Mercury Black Maxx from the 70s or 80s?

300 hp evinrude v8 2 stroke

 

[flying frenchman]

Yup !! Just messing with you guys.

Can't wait!!!!

 

[rmscustom]

The increased clearance of this + a 10% increase in power + the efficiency of the Polaris drivetrain would be a game changer...

 

[Jaynelson]

Well with the big Cat reveal.....at least we know it'll be better than that lol

 

[mountainhorse]

2 lift kit from Roseau!!

Crap...Deleted my previous post by mistake.

I'm moving in LH's direction from looks of the patents.

I throw in my 2 cents of guessing into the speculation.

More bonded parts... the rear suspension front arm & tie rods...though I cant figure out why in the world they would do that instead of a tubular swaged end tie rod???

IMO.. The 2015 will sit higher off the ground... which will change the ride-dynamics of the sled. Raised by extending the QD/Chaincase which lowers the driveshaft and moves it aft a bit, dropping the suspension in the tunnel, lengthening the spindles from the lower ball joint to the ski pivot... and also lengthening the rear drop brackets. These lead me to believe in a taller paddle track offering even if only as an option.

Notice how low in the tunnel the rear-suspension front arm bolt mounts to the tunnel in fig 55 and 59 (pt. 690) and the length of the rear drop brackets and the height in fig-59 referred to as '677"

NOTE: "Body panel 650" refers to the aluminum plate on the bulkhead under the engine.

They are calling out a clearance from this aluminum plate of

I don't believe they will change the rear suspension design...maybe shocks.

I think they will change the oil tank configuration and the move the mass of the fuel tank mass more fwd.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a slight body panel change since the dropped driveshaft will require that... plus maybe making the sled a bit more skinny if at all possible with a mod to the foot well/hoop.

Engine position may be lowered if possible.

I could see opening up the pitch of the track to 3" from 2.86" to conserve on weight a bit also.

Since the 800 DC-CFi-2 engine meets current EPA standards... I think they will still run with that... not increase the displacement... The AXYS project talks up the acceleration factor... I think Polaris may have been looking at some of the aftermarket stuff and also combining that with a lighter crankshaft from the 600 IQR which is a "pork chop" design... this would free up more crankcase volume. IMO...DI costs more... if PI gets the job done without the added weight and expense, they'll run that as long as possible.

Polaris Industries:
]The new lightweight crankshaft features a design that provides the same balance as the previous crankshaft – with a 2.5-pound weight reduction in rotating mass.

This results in a 25% reduction in inertia, improved throttle response and increased acceleration. Racers will achieve better holeshots, and the engine will reach its optimal operating RPM faster.

Looking at the other patents on the RUSH chassis... lots going on there... over the engine steering with IQR style steering gear/linkages, lower sitting engine, chassis reinforcements, lower center of gravity, evolved coupled pro-ride rear skid etc.... Looks like the pipe goes in and sits higher... and pokes out further in the front... RUSH.

All this is fun speculation till they show the sleds next month!!



Patent outlines

[0188] With reference now to FIGS. 53-59, another embodiment of the snowmobile is shown. In the second embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 54-59, the components are substantially as disclosed in the snowmobile described above with respect to FIGS. 1-52, with the exceptions as provided below. The change to the embodiment of FIGS. 54-59 is that the snowmobile has been modified to increase the clearance under the snowmobile for deep snow. Before describing the embodiment of FIGS. 54-59, an existing snowmobile, as depicted in FIG. 53 will be described.

[0189] The snowmobile as depicted in FIG. 53 is an existing snowmobile, and is Applicant's RMK model. As shown, the snowmobile has various components which dictate the clearance underneath the snowmobile. For example, and starting from the front of the snowmobile, distance 682 in the FIG. 53 embodiment is the length of the spindle S from a ski bolt hole to a lower ball joint of the A-arm. In this snowmobile, distance 682 is 4.91 inches (124.66 mm). Moving rearwardly, the next relevant distance is the distance is measured from a bottom of the engine cradle to a position to the bottom 676 of the ski. In this embodiment, the distance 678 is 7.433 inches (188.80 mm). Finally, the height of the snowmobile frame (and in particular, tunnel T) in relation to the ground is influenced by the rear suspension, and in particular the location of the point of rotation P of a front control arm C on the tunnel. In the embodiment of FIG. 53, the distance 684 is the distance from the bottom of the engine cradle to the pivot point P on the tunnel, and is 5.3391 inches (135.613 mm).

[0190] With reference now to FIGS. 54 and 55, the main portions of the snowmobile are shown at 602. Snowmobile 602 includes a frame 604 including a tunnel 606 and a frame front portion 608. It should also be appreciated that snowmobile includes rear suspension 610 including such items as slide rails 612, carrier rollers 614, front control arms 616, rear control arms 618 and shock absorbers at 620. Tunnel 606 may incorporate a cooling system for engine water as more fully described in our U.S. Pat. No. 7,870,920, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

[0191] Snowmobile 602 would also include a front suspension system shown at 626 including lower control arms 628, upper control arms 630, a shock absorber 632, and a spindle 634 attached to ski 636. Snowmobile frame front portion 608 may be similar to our US Publication number 20110132679, the subject matter of which is incorporated herein by reference. Snowmobile 602 also includes a drive mechanism at 640 and a steering mechanism at 642.

[0192] As shown in FIG. 56, a lower body panel 650 is shown which extends across the bottom of the snowmobile and defines the lowest front portion of the snowmobile relative to the ground (snow). FIG. 56 also shows the drive shaft 640 including drive sprockets 652, where drive sprockets 652 are positioned forward of slide rails 612 and lower than body panel 650, as more fully described herein. Given the above general description, the raised chassis portion of the snowmobile for deep snow 602 will now be described.

[0193] With reference to FIGS. 57 and 58, the front suspension 626 will be described in greater detail as modified for the raised chassis. As shown best in FIG. 57, lower control arm 628 is attached to bulkhead 608 at pivotal connections 660 whereas upper control arm 630 is attached to bulkhead 608 at pivotal connections 662. Meanwhile, lower control arm 628 is attached to spindle 634 at ball joint 664 and upper control arm 630 is attached to spindle at ball joint 666. Spindle 634 is attached to ski 636 about a fastener 668.

[0194] With reference still to FIG. 57, a distance 680 is shown which is the distance between the center of ball joint 664 (within spindle 634) to the center of the fastener 668. As shown, and in a first embodiment, distance 680 is 6.91 inches (175.41 mm) whereas the analogous distance 682 in the FIG. 53 embodiment is 4.91 inches (124.66 mm). Thus, the spindle has been raised by an additional two inches yet the suspension components, namely the lower control arm 628 and upper control arm 630 are positioned in the same manner relative to the bulkhead and the spindle 634 as before; the length of the spindle has only changed from a position downwardly from the connection point of the lower control arm 628.

[0195] With respect to FIG. 59, the body panel 650 is positioned vertically adjacent to a center line 670 of the driveshaft 640. In the embodiment shown, the distance from the body panel 650 to centerline 670 is preferably less than one and a half inches and in the embodiment shown is 1.4 inches (31.64 mm). Furthermore, the bottom of the chassis 650 has been raised relative to a lower outer portion of the drive sprocket 652. In the FIG. 53 embodiment, the bottom of the sprocket is essentially planar with the bottom of the chassis, such that distance 674 is approximately 0.1775''. In the FIG. 59 embodiment, and in a first embodiment, the distance 672 is approximately 2.1772 inches or approximately 2 inches greater.

[0196] It should also be noted that the center line 670 of the driveshaft has not been lowered relative to a ground plane 676 but rather the remaining portion of the chassis has been raised relative to the ground plane 676. In the embodiment shown, the body panel 650 has been raised by approximately two inches relative to the ground plane 676. As shown, and in a first embodiment, the distance 677 between the body panel 650 and the ground plane 676 is 9.12 inches (231.647 mm). In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 53, the corresponding distance 678 is 7.261 inches (184.432 mm). Thus, the end result of the design changes mentioned above has raised the ground clearance of the body panel 650 relative to the ground plane, and relative to the top surface of the snow.

[0197] Specifically, this has been accomplished by providing a revised bulkhead portion 608A (FIGS. 56 and 60), which is provided with a semi-circular portion 608B profiled to receive the drive mechanism 640. In addition, and as mentioned above, the revised spindle 634 has been elongated which raises the location of the upper and lower control arms relative to the previous snowmobiles.

[0198] Also, the tunnel 606 is raised relative to the ground by moving the connection of the front control arm 616 relative to the tunnel 606. Namely, the connection point between the two is shown at 690 in FIG. 55. As shown in FIG. 59, the distance from the bottom of the chassis at 650 to the connection point 690 is shown as distance 686. In the first embodiment, the distance 686 is 3.34 inches (84.84 mm) and in the embodiment of FIG. 53, the analogous distance 674 is 5.34 inches (135.64 mm).

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130032420#ixzz2tdpd0gpK
​

.

 

[mountainhorse]

Maybe something new on top of the lift kit like this from Diamond-S.

this is the best mod you can do to the pro-RMK to improve the handling of an already excellent handling snowmobile we are not just simply moving the steering post we have also moved the foot Wells forward also this allows the rider to place their weight more centered over the drive axle if you have ever been on the SkiDoo XM you will know just what we are talking about.the steering post has been moved forward 2" the foot Wells are forward almost 3"

we have built a few pros like this we are trying to see how much interest there is to see if we want to sell it as a kit either a complete kit or or just the post forward please let us know what you think

.

 

[mountainhorse]

It would not surprise me if the sled had a more rider fwd. position that came in the 2015 as mentioned above.... Something along the lines of the Diamond-S or Rocky Young's sled. Maybe Rock's sled caught the eye of Roseau?? I think Rocky was running coolant through the running boards as well. . I saw a few others doing this back in 2012... I wish I had some pics

 

[LoudHandle]

I think the rider forward might have some merit in a couple ways; They could move the extruded running board further forward (or lengthen it) with a notch for the QD or chain case and tie it in to the bulkhead with a different front casting , thus stiffening the weak point in the tunnel at the stirrup. Also by scaling the patent drawings the new drive center to center will be about 2" longer (~9.56") long enough to run the 3" tracks with at least the 8 tooth drivers, probably even nine tooth. It would also allow them room to put the brake on the drive shaft under the driven clutch. This would be very easy for them now, with the glued driveshaft as they would just need to glue a splined end on both sides of the drive shaft and cast a mount for the caliper. While they are updating the fenders for the driveshaft hump, it would be very easy for them to rework the back footwell edge and allow a further forward foot position. The footwell block offs would need to be reworked to keep snow out and keep your boots out of the QD belt (and brake).

Most of the things you have asked them for with a few extras tossed in to take the sled to the next level and make it a viable platform for another five years or so.

 

[mountainhorse]

So... Since I'm bored waiting for Quickbooks to update (argh)...

Here is my speculation summary... This year, I'm totally in the dark and P.I. is tight lipped.

1) Sled raised between 1" - 2" with skid relocation, longer drop brackets, longer spindles

2) Rider position moved a bit fwd with steering post and running board length with Steering hoop mods. Maybe steering/pyramid running more aft under seat.

3) New track Options for snowcheck.

4) Different handlebars

5) Crankshaft change and some tuning improvements worth a bit more hp.

6) Smaller relocated oil tank.

7) More centralized mass of fuel load.

8) The team in Roseau fixes the ski snubber situation.

9) Drops weight to 409 lbs. (-8lbs) (sounds good to have the middle zero for marketing )


Hey... My BLT just arrived!!










.

 

[RMK-King]

^I am still expecting BNG this yr,and maybe those updates to the RMKs next yr. Seems like P.I is focusing pretty hard on the new Rush this yr. Would be cool if they went all out on their 60th though!

 

[prosledder]

Prototype Skid

It would not surprise me if the sled had a more rider fwd. position that came in the 2015 as mentioned above.... Something along the lines of the Diamond-S or Rocky Young's sled. Maybe Rock's sled caught the eye of Roseau?? I think Rocky was running coolant through the running boards as well. . I saw a few others doing this back in 2012... I wish I had some pics

If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong...didn't this same article say Rocky was testing a new Timberlsed skid and the front arm moved similar to ski doo's T-Motion? I thought it was pretty interesting!

 

[rmscustom]

I wonder if they are ripping off Timbersled's snowbike??


.

Flexible front arm?

Think T-Motion but done on the right end

If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong...didn't this same article say Rocky was testing a new Timberlsed skid and the front arm moved similar to ski doo's T-Motion? I thought it was pretty interesting!

Hmmm... does MH have some inside info?

 

[prosledder]

Sledheads Article

Here's the article I was talking about:

 

[Hawkster]

I wonder if they are ripping off Timbersled's snowbike??

Ya never know , it's not like their kit is actually the original kind of like their flex suspension that their offering in their bike kits last year. They have a high quality knock off program .

For such a knowledgeable person I'm really surprised you even said that .

Brand loyalty can be a curse to knowing what's out there .

 

[assault11]

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/snowmobiles/project-axys
38 pounds lighter. And they say more power

 

[mud99]

Is it flickable?

 

[m1kflyingtiger]

About 13% more flickable actually.

 

[geo]

If they lowered the center of gravity like has been posted and keep the running boards at the same height (maybe even flatten them out some) the rider would "feel" like the sled was much lighter.

 

[mountainhorse]

If they lowered the center of gravity like has been posted and keep the running boards at the same height (maybe even flatten them out some) the rider would "feel" like the sled was much lighter.

Of course, all of the this is fun speculation....

On the PRO RMK...If it holds true to the patents that they took a lot of time to prepare... They are actually Jacking it up a bit... An even lift front and rear by 2" on the RMK/PRO-RMK models and maybe the Assaults.

Mountainhorse: RE: 2 lift kit from Roseau!!

Crap...Deleted my previous post by mistake.

I'm moving in LH's direction from looks of the patents.

I throw in my 2 cents of guessing into the speculation.

More bonded parts... the rear suspension front arm & tie rods...though I cant figure out why in the world they would do that instead of a tubular swaged end tie rod???

IMO.. The 2015 will sit higher off the ground... which will change the ride-dynamics of the sled. Raised by extending the QD/Chaincase which lowers the driveshaft and moves it aft a bit, dropping the suspension in the tunnel, lengthening the spindles from the lower ball joint to the ski pivot... and also lengthening the rear drop brackets. These lead me to believe in a taller paddle track offering even if only as an option.

Notice how low in the tunnel the rear-suspension front arm bolt mounts to the tunnel in fig 55 and 59 (pt. 690) and the length of the rear drop brackets and the height in fig-59 referred to as '677"

NOTE: "Body panel 650" refers to the aluminum plate on the bulkhead under the engine.

They are calling out a clearance from this aluminum plate of

I don't believe they will change the rear suspension design...maybe shocks.

I think they will change the oil tank configuration and the move the mass of the fuel tank mass more fwd.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a slight body panel change since the dropped driveshaft will require that... plus maybe making the sled a bit more skinny if at all possible with a mod to the foot well/hoop.

Engine position may be lowered if possible.

I could see opening up the pitch of the track to 3" from 2.86" to conserve on weight a bit also.

Since the 800 DC-CFi-2 engine meets current EPA standards... I think they will still run with that... not increase the displacement... The AXYS project talks up the acceleration factor... I think Polaris may have been looking at some of the aftermarket stuff and also combining that with a lighter crankshaft from the 600 IQR which is a "pork chop" design... this would free up more crankcase volume. IMO...DI costs more... if PI gets the job done without the added weight and expense, they'll run that as long as possible.

Polaris Industries:
]The new lightweight crankshaft features a design that provides the same balance as the previous crankshaft – with a 2.5-pound weight reduction in rotating mass.

This results in a 25% reduction in inertia, improved throttle response and increased acceleration. Racers will achieve better holeshots, and the engine will reach its optimal operating RPM faster.

Looking at the other patents on the RUSH chassis... lots going on there... over the engine steering with IQR style steering gear/linkages, lower sitting engine, chassis reinforcements, lower center of gravity, evolved coupled pro-ride rear skid etc.... Looks like the pipe goes in and sits higher... and pokes out further in the front... RUSH.

All this is fun speculation till they show the sleds next month!!



Patent outlines

[0188] With reference now to FIGS. 53-59, another embodiment of the snowmobile is shown. In the second embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 54-59, the components are substantially as disclosed in the snowmobile described above with respect to FIGS. 1-52, with the exceptions as provided below. The change to the embodiment of FIGS. 54-59 is that the snowmobile has been modified to increase the clearance under the snowmobile for deep snow. Before describing the embodiment of FIGS. 54-59, an existing snowmobile, as depicted in FIG. 53 will be described.

[0189] The snowmobile as depicted in FIG. 53 is an existing snowmobile, and is Applicant's RMK model. As shown, the snowmobile has various components which dictate the clearance underneath the snowmobile. For example, and starting from the front of the snowmobile, distance 682 in the FIG. 53 embodiment is the length of the spindle S from a ski bolt hole to a lower ball joint of the A-arm. In this snowmobile, distance 682 is 4.91 inches (124.66 mm). Moving rearwardly, the next relevant distance is the distance is measured from a bottom of the engine cradle to a position to the bottom 676 of the ski. In this embodiment, the distance 678 is 7.433 inches (188.80 mm). Finally, the height of the snowmobile frame (and in particular, tunnel T) in relation to the ground is influenced by the rear suspension, and in particular the location of the point of rotation P of a front control arm C on the tunnel. In the embodiment of FIG. 53, the distance 684 is the distance from the bottom of the engine cradle to the pivot point P on the tunnel, and is 5.3391 inches (135.613 mm).

[0190] With reference now to FIGS. 54 and 55, the main portions of the snowmobile are shown at 602. Snowmobile 602 includes a frame 604 including a tunnel 606 and a frame front portion 608. It should also be appreciated that snowmobile includes rear suspension 610 including such items as slide rails 612, carrier rollers 614, front control arms 616, rear control arms 618 and shock absorbers at 620. Tunnel 606 may incorporate a cooling system for engine water as more fully described in our U.S. Pat. No. 7,870,920, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

[0191] Snowmobile 602 would also include a front suspension system shown at 626 including lower control arms 628, upper control arms 630, a shock absorber 632, and a spindle 634 attached to ski 636. Snowmobile frame front portion 608 may be similar to our US Publication number 20110132679, the subject matter of which is incorporated herein by reference. Snowmobile 602 also includes a drive mechanism at 640 and a steering mechanism at 642.

[0192] As shown in FIG. 56, a lower body panel 650 is shown which extends across the bottom of the snowmobile and defines the lowest front portion of the snowmobile relative to the ground (snow). FIG. 56 also shows the drive shaft 640 including drive sprockets 652, where drive sprockets 652 are positioned forward of slide rails 612 and lower than body panel 650, as more fully described herein. Given the above general description, the raised chassis portion of the snowmobile for deep snow 602 will now be described.

[0193] With reference to FIGS. 57 and 58, the front suspension 626 will be described in greater detail as modified for the raised chassis. As shown best in FIG. 57, lower control arm 628 is attached to bulkhead 608 at pivotal connections 660 whereas upper control arm 630 is attached to bulkhead 608 at pivotal connections 662. Meanwhile, lower control arm 628 is attached to spindle 634 at ball joint 664 and upper control arm 630 is attached to spindle at ball joint 666. Spindle 634 is attached to ski 636 about a fastener 668.

[0194] With reference still to FIG. 57, a distance 680 is shown which is the distance between the center of ball joint 664 (within spindle 634) to the center of the fastener 668. As shown, and in a first embodiment, distance 680 is 6.91 inches (175.41 mm) whereas the analogous distance 682 in the FIG. 53 embodiment is 4.91 inches (124.66 mm). Thus, the spindle has been raised by an additional two inches yet the suspension components, namely the lower control arm 628 and upper control arm 630 are positioned in the same manner relative to the bulkhead and the spindle 634 as before; the length of the spindle has only changed from a position downwardly from the connection point of the lower control arm 628.

[0195] With respect to FIG. 59, the body panel 650 is positioned vertically adjacent to a center line 670 of the driveshaft 640. In the embodiment shown, the distance from the body panel 650 to centerline 670 is preferably less than one and a half inches and in the embodiment shown is 1.4 inches (31.64 mm). Furthermore, the bottom of the chassis 650 has been raised relative to a lower outer portion of the drive sprocket 652. In the FIG. 53 embodiment, the bottom of the sprocket is essentially planar with the bottom of the chassis, such that distance 674 is approximately 0.1775''. In the FIG. 59 embodiment, and in a first embodiment, the distance 672 is approximately 2.1772 inches or approximately 2 inches greater.

[0196] It should also be noted that the center line 670 of the driveshaft has not been lowered relative to a ground plane 676 but rather the remaining portion of the chassis has been raised relative to the ground plane 676. In the embodiment shown, the body panel 650 has been raised by approximately two inches relative to the ground plane 676. As shown, and in a first embodiment, the distance 677 between the body panel 650 and the ground plane 676 is 9.12 inches (231.647 mm). In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 53, the corresponding distance 678 is 7.261 inches (184.432 mm). Thus, the end result of the design changes mentioned above has raised the ground clearance of the body panel 650 relative to the ground plane, and relative to the top surface of the snow.

[0197] Specifically, this has been accomplished by providing a revised bulkhead portion 608A (FIGS. 56 and 60), which is provided with a semi-circular portion 608B profiled to receive the drive mechanism 640. In addition, and as mentioned above, the revised spindle 634 has been elongated which raises the location of the upper and lower control arms relative to the previous snowmobiles.

[0198] Also, the tunnel 606 is raised relative to the ground by moving the connection of the front control arm 616 relative to the tunnel 606. Namely, the connection point between the two is shown at 690 in FIG. 55. As shown in FIG. 59, the distance from the bottom of the chassis at 650 to the connection point 690 is shown as distance 686. In the first embodiment, the distance 686 is 3.34 inches (84.84 mm) and in the embodiment of FIG. 53, the analogous distance 674 is 5.34 inches (135.64 mm).

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130032420#ixzz2tdpd0gpK
​

.

 

[turboless terry]

If they lowered the center of gravity like has been posted and keep the running boards at the same height (maybe even flatten them out some) the rider would "feel" like the sled was much lighter.

Seems like to me that it would feel lighter due to them jacking it up all the way around 2 inches. It should lay over easier but could also throw you away quicker.