2016 axys RMK... beginning to see some details.

[bryceraisanen]

crap! I only have one day of riding in so far this year an I'm already chompin at the bit to snowcheck 2017. I'm screwed!!

 

[sledheader]

Site also says trims 13 pounds...so if the new mountain sled was at 407 lbs that alone could possibly get it below 400lbs.....

Yep, and the great thing is, all it takes is money

Spend 13k on a brand new sled then another 700 bucks on an exhaust, 500 bucks for tunnel stiffeners, and bumpers....which add the 13 lbs back on that the pipe took off...

vicious circle, I tell ya

 

[snowmobiler]

399 like an 08 skidoo with a can.i wanna see something new.

 

[richracer1]

What part of this sport doesn't take money. Lol

 

[Scott]

So WHAT is it going to be?

An AXYS chassis stretched into an RMK with a Pro RMK rear end, with as much apples to apples as possible, isn't THAT much of a difference from the current 2015 PRO RMK.
That's really just a new motor, new bulkhead and new plastic.

What else could they do to it?
There's gotta be more.

 

[sledheader]

So WHAT is it going to be?

An AXYS chassis stretched into an RMK with a Pro RMK rear end, with as much apples to apples as possible, isn't THAT much of a difference from the current 2015 PRO RMK.
That's really just a new motor, new bulkhead and new plastic.

What else could they do to it?
There's gotta be more.

Pretty Close. I'm gonna say axys front end with a pro rmk rear end (unchanged) 2.6-3" paddle offered in a 155 or 163. New 800 HO motor, aluminum a arms instead of bonded. What more do you want? If they went with a drastic rear suspension or track width change, I would have a hard time being a guinea pig

 

[m1kflyingtiger]

It's a debatable point, but IMO the current pro is the best handeling sled out there. There doesn't have to be more. If all it is is a little more nimble (skinny front end, lower CG), more power, and a new track that's plenty. If they could do all that AND lose some weight I think it's a home run.

 

[LoudHandle]

I'd like to see: a return to 9 tooth involute drivers, drop the rear suspension out 2", drop the drive shaft down and back to provide enough clearance for a 3" paddle and still run the 9 tooth drivers (~9" C to C), lengthen the spindle 2" between the lower A-arm and the ski. Much like the patent drawings filed in 2013. An EZ-Ryde or EZ-Ryde Curve stock is probably too much to hope for. Brake on the driveshaft. Belt drive with tensioner, with ratios down to 3:1 available (assuming they can get the QC in check as it appears they have been lax on that in recent years on many parts that should be held to 0.0001" and are not even within 0.001"). Sub 400# Dry, although ~340#'s would be better and achievable without comprising durability.

 

[Scott]

It's a debatable point, but IMO the current pro is the best handeling sled out there. There doesn't have to be more. If all it is is a little more nimble (skinny front end, lower CG), more power, and a new track that's plenty. If they could do all that AND lose some weight I think it's a home run.

Would a lower CG make it more or less nimble?
I say less nimble in deep powder.

 

[Scott]

I'd like to see: a return to 9 tooth involute drivers, drop the rear suspension out 2", drop the drive shaft down and back to provide enough clearance for a 3" paddle and still run the 9 tooth drivers (~9" C to C), lengthen the spindle 2" between the lower A-arm and the ski. Much like the patent drawings filed in 2013. An EZ-Ryde or EZ-Ryde Curve stock is probably too much to hope for. Brake on the driveshaft. Belt drive with tensioner, with ratios down to 3:1 available (assuming they can get the QC in check as it appears they have been lax on that in recent years on many parts that should be held to 0.0001" and are not even within 0.001"). Sub 400# Dry, although ~340#'s would be better and achievable without comprising durability.

More room in the bulkhead would be a positive.

 

[sledneck_03]

I would like a new video right meow to hold me over till tomorrow.

 

[Spaarky]

First off to all the people that have been texting, calling me, that have seen the sled or know what it is.... SCREW YOU GUYS, YOUR NOT MY FRIENDS ANYMORE.

Ok... the rumors have been flying for over a year, of some back country snow bike type terrain machine. 350lbs.. Some thought it was coming last year. I have been questioning if we will get two sleds. One more of a lengthened Axys like a Pro... almost. Another a terrain specific machine. I will say it until the reveal tomorrow... this is whats coming...

I'd call it the "Xtreme Terrain Dominator - RMK " [ XTD-RMK ] .... a radical departure from the norm.

This is what, I believe, would sell to this "New Xtreme Mountain Rider"

An XTD-RMK would NOT be very trail friendly... which is OK because of the other mountain offerings for those that prefer that style of riding.

This sled would be able to get on edge easily, stay there as long as you want, and be lighter from the narrower design... target 375lbs dry.


What I could see in an XTD-RMK ...

800 HO power-plant (narrower engine overall) that sits low in the chassis for a low CG and low Rotating mass.
New, shorter Primary clutch and recoil, to aid in keeping the engine "package" as narrow as possible.
12-13" wide, 163" track, with a crowned "rocker" 2.8" lug design [Center lug is taller than the outer lug... OR a continuous paddle from edge to edge in an arc shape)
Track with taller internal drive lugs for better driver engagement and less ratcheting ... to work with...
Single Combo Driver(extro/intro)... no more 3-driver system... and still keeps the rail tips close to the Driveshaft as Polaris engineers like it.
Rear suspension with narrow distance-between-rails (lighter and works with new track)
Lighter rails with a more cut-out "truss" design.
Hollow Rear axle with single nut for tightening.
Float shocks that allow rider to tailor the ride character quickly on the hill
Smooth aluminum drop brackets that don't collect ice (like an aluminum version of the Dragon bracket)
Coated parts to shed snow better.
Further-evolved QuickDrive ... extruded driveshaft without collar
Brake on Driveshaft
Narrow Tunnel, tank and seat allows more body "English" without hop-over for steep terrain control and less effort.
Lower seat.
New tank design that would allow more of the fuel mass to be carried fwd (like RUSH design)
Pressure cast Upper A-arm with a true ball-joint rather than rod end.
New narrower bodywork to keep from "Paneling out"
35" stance
Evolution of Gripper ski to hold sidehills better and not fold like current design.
Redesigned bulkhead to work with lower mounting position of engine and narrow tunnel/track
Foot pockets that will extend further fwd. and give the rider foot position options on steep terrain.
Overall taller chassis design with 2" longer spindles and 2" lower driveshaft, while keeping tank and saddle low as possible.
LED lighting
GPS MFD
Built in "glovebox" for warming goggles/gloves
Strong bumper standard to deal with Xtreme Terrain obstacles

I think Mountainhorse hit the nail on the head, except he missed a couple things, one of which, I believe is rear skid. Even the Skidoo guys say the Pro in its current platform is the best boondocking sled.... why not continue. Some big azz 174 was already built, why not build the lightest, most nimble sled on the market.

DISCLAIMER: I COULD BE WRONG. MY WIFE TELLS ME I AM EVERY DAY

 

[snowmobiler]

thats what i see in the video.

 

[m1kflyingtiger]

Would a lower CG make it more or less nimble?
I say less nimble in deep powder.

Lower CG doesn't nessicarly make it more nimble, but it makes it eaiser to get back if you lose your line. High CG makes it eaiser to iniate, low CG makes it eaiser to change that direction. The skinny front end with proper calibration could make it eaiser to iniate, while the lower CG would make it eaiser to catch up if you screwed up. I'm no engineer but that's my thoughts on it.

 

[Scott]

Lower CG doesn't nessicarly make it more nimble, but it makes it eaiser to get back if you lose your line. High CG makes it eaiser to iniate, low CG makes it eaiser to change that direction. The skinny front end with proper calibration could make it eaiser to iniate, while the lower CG would make it eaiser to catch up if you screwed up. I'm no engineer but that's my thoughts on it.

I understand your line of thought.

 

[turboless terry]

Scott I think you look at mountain horse post. Something similar. I think an axys front end. The video just makes it look like only one mounting point due to the angle. I think the pudding is in the back. You look at the 2 feet of track they show and it runs really parallel to itself compared to a regular sled. Possibly a rush/snow bike suspension. If they get more length on the ground for say a 155 then you normally have they might be able to narrow it and not lose any traction or floatation. This will make it more nimble. The rails look boxy. That's my prediction.

 

[Scott]

Scott I think you look at mountain horse post. Something similar. I think an axys front end. The video just makes it look like only one mounting point due to the angle. I think the pudding is in the back. You look at the 2 feet of track they show and it runs really parallel to itself compared to a regular sled. Possibly a rush/snow bike suspension. If they get more length on the ground for say a 155 then you normally have they might be able to narrow it and not lose any traction or floatation. This will make it more nimble. The rails look boxy. That's my prediction.

Oh I've read through that thread MANY times since May.

 

[BLSDEEP]

May be good or bad but this is a sled with miles on it not a computer with break in mode off.

How did that Dyno test go???

 

[sledneck_03]

How did that Dyno test go???

no post yet. also no stock hp number stupid switchback has a turbo.

 

[snowmobiler]

track