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”.
850 gone down already??
- Thread starter ANTHONY11
- Start date
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”.
Oh I’m definitely not butt hurt, just offering my perspective and opinion.
There a 4.1 billion dollar company btw....lol stock went from 97.00 to 72.00 a share after this thread started......JK but its the same time frame
https://charting.nasdaq.com/ext/charts.dll?2-1-14-0-0-512-03NA000000pii-&SF:4|5-HT=350-
Lol. Crazy all the investors reading this thread ?
I’ll clarify that I talk Gross Revenue not Market Cap when referencing the size of a company. Gross revenue isn’t impacted on a daily basis based on the rumblings of a President and the twist the media puts on it
Wow
Rollers bearings thats caged that uses crank as race has been used for years and years. Cats lay down motors, plus millions more. The tolerance matters for crush and bearing doesn’t move because of crush height
The problem was lubrication to the bearing on a few and tolerances
Rollers bearings thats caged that uses crank as race has been used for years and years. Cats lay down motors, plus millions more. The tolerance matters for crush and bearing doesn’t move because of crush height
The problem was lubrication to the bearing on a few and tolerances
Last edited:
Great explanation
This is puts everything in the right perspective, great explanation of where everybody fits in the grand scheme of things THANK YOU!!!!
This is puts everything in the right perspective, great explanation of where everybody fits in the grand scheme of things THANK YOU!!!!
Agreed, one more thing that needs to be added to the equation: harmonics
D
I was going to quote and reply near the same. I found it quite remarkable. So I'll just back you on this one
D
Harmonics is one of those things that is difficult to predict. Rotax used additional weight and even a fluid balancer on the mag side of many of their twin sled and aero engines. This became obsolete with the ETEC having a heavier magneto flywheel for the 1200W stator.
+ Clutch Heat
Whether it is a Cat, Doo or Poo, can't be running 300F belts and expect things to go well. Off-Trail sleds need more cooling and better clutching, gearing and alignment when ridden hard. With stock clutching and misaligned CVT I can easily raise belt temp on any trail sled well above 200F or until the belt delaminates. When I go off-trail it gets hot faster. The PTO bearing(s) doesn't fair well when it gets too hot. I have seen a pto bearing become loose in the case and hammer the bore in the direction of the secondary - granted not an 850.
Last edited:
This is a great thread into the many intricacies of the modern 2 stroke sled motor.
I've pretty much cut through the WHOLE thread...that took a while....
I'm surprised they wouldn't "locate" that PTO roller bearing outer race in the housing. You could use a dowel pin or retaining ring as there isn't much/no lateral load... but vibration, and as mentioned...assembly variations.... can do weird things..
I do like the idea of a big roller and using the crankshaft as inner race. Nothing new...but lighter and less rotating mass. Two thumbs up.
The whole Nikosil (or Nickel Silicone) finishing did surprise me. Having seen many many over the years I always wondered how they finished it. The coating is basically the same as the "Carbide" tools we use to cut steel with so you can appreciate what Dan is saying. A rough finish is going to destroy your dainty single ring in short order even with lube. All you can hope is that your motor was made later in the run when the edge was removed from the diamond honing tools.
I am also concerned with the heat being passed from clutch to crank, but if you consider the etec 850 in the Summit has been reliable with 300F clutch temps....not too worried.
Merry Christmas All!!
OTM
I've pretty much cut through the WHOLE thread...that took a while....
I'm surprised they wouldn't "locate" that PTO roller bearing outer race in the housing. You could use a dowel pin or retaining ring as there isn't much/no lateral load... but vibration, and as mentioned...assembly variations.... can do weird things..
I do like the idea of a big roller and using the crankshaft as inner race. Nothing new...but lighter and less rotating mass. Two thumbs up.
The whole Nikosil (or Nickel Silicone) finishing did surprise me. Having seen many many over the years I always wondered how they finished it. The coating is basically the same as the "Carbide" tools we use to cut steel with so you can appreciate what Dan is saying. A rough finish is going to destroy your dainty single ring in short order even with lube. All you can hope is that your motor was made later in the run when the edge was removed from the diamond honing tools.
I am also concerned with the heat being passed from clutch to crank, but if you consider the etec 850 in the Summit has been reliable with 300F clutch temps....not too worried.
Merry Christmas All!!
OTM
S
Coming from many years in the product development world, albeit in chemicals, I have always appreciated real world feedback while many of my counterparts get defensive. On the bearing issue, I think it was Jim that said it best. In a mass production setting, engineers should design the variability of assembly out of the product. So many engineers are so arrogant and when their baby turns ugly, they blame the next person down the line. In a perfect assembly, is the design sufficient? Maybe. But you need to remember, that assembler isn’t receiving the engineer’s salary. Is a locating measure needed? Maybe, maybe not. But I can say that without a doubt, a locating ring/pin would at a minimum put the bearing in the right place in 100% of the assemblies.
I laugh when people say that they’re a $4-5B company so they must know what they’re doing. To put in perspective, the company I work for is a $15B company and I can attest, we are not always the best at designing and it usually shows it’s ugly head between field test and production where the difference is only who does the production. At which point the engineer starts blaming everybody else and points to all his data he/she had generated to that point. When I formulate a product, I own that product and all plant support/quality for two years. When there’s a problem, I get the call. When something happens in the field, I have to talk directly to the customer so you can bet I formulate with production variables in mind. I also understand cost/benefit. I can guaranty that a locating item would’ve easily passed the accounting sniff test if the engineer was smart enough to include assembly labor in their pitch for the benefits. As a side note, I do get a kick out watching our engineers work on our equipment in the field. Turns out the setting isn’t as clean and you’re usually standing on your head doing it. They get so used to working in a lab setting so it is amusing.
I laugh when people say that they’re a $4-5B company so they must know what they’re doing. To put in perspective, the company I work for is a $15B company and I can attest, we are not always the best at designing and it usually shows it’s ugly head between field test and production where the difference is only who does the production. At which point the engineer starts blaming everybody else and points to all his data he/she had generated to that point. When I formulate a product, I own that product and all plant support/quality for two years. When there’s a problem, I get the call. When something happens in the field, I have to talk directly to the customer so you can bet I formulate with production variables in mind. I also understand cost/benefit. I can guaranty that a locating item would’ve easily passed the accounting sniff test if the engineer was smart enough to include assembly labor in their pitch for the benefits. As a side note, I do get a kick out watching our engineers work on our equipment in the field. Turns out the setting isn’t as clean and you’re usually standing on your head doing it. They get so used to working in a lab setting so it is amusing.
Last edited:
My bad...Im a very sensitive person. I, and everyone else, misunderstood your cynicism and sarcasm towards our comments, while also touting the correctness of Polaris as being obviously correct because they are a 5B company, as saying we were wrong.
Something I think we can all agree on: You weren't positive, backing up or complimenting anyone in this thread.
Yes sir, agree. Witnessed it many times also.
Wonder why Fuji always used a locating pin. Hmm
S
maybe its made that way on purpose.bearing hammers out the case.then it slides over.good to go for awhile more.
Go read all my posts in this thread. And then have a Merry Christmas.
1. Polaris is not perfect
2. They will not design the best possible design
3. Others will have more experience and better ideas than they will
4. People will find solutions to “issues” and build small businesses out of them where they will provide a solution to a small segment of the market
5. Business are built with people and not all those people agree on the path the leaders take it.
However,
To grow to $1B, $5B, or $15B... they are doing something right or the right mix of things or they would not be alive today. Nobody will ever say they couldn’t be bigger, provide better support, engineer things better, make more money, provide better customer support, or whatever other measurement you want to tout.
Polaris has been building **** engines for long enough for Dan to have built a very successful business fixing them for people. But yet, they continue to grow. Evidently Polaris understands the market they are selling to and that market is willling to buy a crappy product, spend a bunch of money to fix it, and then come back year after year and buy more **** from them.
This is the true statement that just boggles my mind....
"Polaris has been building **** engines for long enough for Dan to have built a very successful business fixing them for people. But yet, they continue to grow. Evidently Polaris understands the market they are selling to and that market is willling to buy a crappy product, spend a bunch of money to fix it, and then come back year after year and buy more **** from them. "
I personally bailed on them when I found out I couldn't get two reliable seasons out of a $12,000 machine. Not sure who finds that acceptable and keeps sending them money but it isn't a model that works for me.
Then all of the defenders of the brand.... seriously? They have screwed so many people so many times I honestly do not know how they stay in business at all. The 900 and 800 dragon should be lessons but many of those buyers are back for more defending the next big bomb from Polaris. Good Luck to you but you will likely get what you deserve for not paying attention to past performance. <!-- / message -->
"Polaris has been building **** engines for long enough for Dan to have built a very successful business fixing them for people. But yet, they continue to grow. Evidently Polaris understands the market they are selling to and that market is willling to buy a crappy product, spend a bunch of money to fix it, and then come back year after year and buy more **** from them. "
I personally bailed on them when I found out I couldn't get two reliable seasons out of a $12,000 machine. Not sure who finds that acceptable and keeps sending them money but it isn't a model that works for me.
Then all of the defenders of the brand.... seriously? They have screwed so many people so many times I honestly do not know how they stay in business at all. The 900 and 800 dragon should be lessons but many of those buyers are back for more defending the next big bomb from Polaris. Good Luck to you but you will likely get what you deserve for not paying attention to past performance. <!-- / message -->
<!-- controls --> 
Rate this post: 
| 
https://www.snowest.com/forum/post_...8997-6a208e7ca51366bb561fc8c9fe8cd98ffcd9f601
Rate this post: | https://www.snowest.com/forum/post_...8997-6a208e7ca51366bb561fc8c9fe8cd98ffcd9f601
S
i think its the 110 color combinations.nobody wants to ride a purple or yellow sled.
This is the true statement that just boggles my mind....
"Polaris has been building **** engines for long enough for Dan to have built a very successful business fixing them for people. But yet, they continue to grow. Evidently Polaris understands the market they are selling to and that market is willling to buy a crappy product, spend a bunch of money to fix it, and then come back year after year and buy more **** from them. "
I personally bailed on them when I found out I couldn't get two reliable seasons out of a $12,000 machine. Not sure who finds that acceptable and keeps sending them money but it isn't a model that works for me.
Then all of the defenders of the brand.... seriously? They have screwed so many people so many times I honestly do not know how they stay in business at all. The 900 and 800 dragon should be lessons but many of those buyers are back for more defending the next big bomb from Polaris. Good Luck to you but you will likely get what you deserve for not paying attention to past performance. <!-- / message -->
<!-- controls -->
https://www.snowest.com/forum/post_...8997-6a208e7ca51366bb561fc8c9fe8cd98ffcd9f601
Many or most of us ride Polaris because we have not ridden another brand that we enjoy as much. Plain and simple, we are willing to pay to play. If there were another brand I liked to ride as much as a Poo, I would be on it.
I have not ridden the alpha but for my riding I chose Polaris fits me the best I will live with issues. Because I don't have time to hand build one.
Someone’s getting it.
It’s about crush height and interference holding the bearing. Looks to me like the one pictured, the tolerances were off at assembly and went south. Even if you put a retainer in that particular case with new bearing. It’s still not going to work and get spun .
The holding power is in crush height and interference with set bearing to the alloy. When this is proper as most are, that bearing ain’t going nowhere and no need for retainer.
Last edited:
Similar threads
