While I appreciate your humor here, I simply see this thread as several people sharing perspectives, ideas and theories on this topic. Does it mean I'm right? Nope...it would take months, if not years, of design, testing and refinement to know for sure. I'm all theory here based on my background. But add a guy like Dan, and others with years of real-world knowledge (which I value much more than theory) and you have some great discussions which tend to support each other. And one thing I have always seen constant is that real-world knowledge/experience always translates back to sound engineering principles/theory. However, engineering theory/principles don't always translate to the real-world application (ever watch the show "engineering disasters"?). Lastly, the cost of quality for mass production is real. Maybe this configuration works great if assembled correctly...but allowing variability to occur by an operator/assembler is a poor approach. One should design-out the chance for variation, and this doesn't have to be expensive...it is cheaper if done correctly. Does this whole issue sound cheap? What is the ROI for moving bearings vs ring located vs failure rates? I sure don't know, but sounds like you might based on your comments?
That said, sitting back and saying people are wrong with no rational or information to back that up is empty and not constructive. The number of times that approach has accomplished anything in the history of the world is still zero. If we are wrong, share your thoughts why? I would like to hear why I may be wrong and learn. I'm passionate about having an open mind and learning...and my ego is not my priority here...not anyone's on here from what I can see.
Where did I say you or anyone else was wrong? Because if you took it that way it absolutely isn’t what I meant? I shared my opinions on the matter if you read back through the thread. To summarize, just because there is a better way (in one aspect of “better”), does not for a second mean it is “better” in the entire scope of the situation for the outcome that is desired. Dans approach is absolutely “better” from a long term durability standpoint, but it obviously isn’t “better” for for volumes, margins, profitability, the 90% of the market they go after, etc when all things are considered...otherwise he’d have have 3 manufacturers buying their engines from him to put in their sleds. People with vast experiences in a technical aspect can get blinders to that part of the equation. Engineers do it, Finance people do it, Sales guys do it, service personnel do it, everyone does it. They really do have the best answer for the portion of the business they represent. What makes Polaris (and many other companies) a $5B dollar company is not because they are perfect at any one thing, but they have been good at balancing all the needs and building products that have the right cost structure for the vast market they are going after. This has allowed the right margins and volumes to grow and succeed. You will ALWAYS be able to find ways to do things better than a major manufacturer...but all things considered, there are typically only a handful of things that, if done differently, would provide a more positive outcome in total. And that’s largely due to the hindsight 20/20 rule... Then there are absolutely those issues that were unforeseen because they thought a certain design would do “X” and it did “Y”.