That's exactly the same advice I'd give you not sure what the issue is.
Blown 1115 belt at 150 miles. You've gotta see the Polaris answer...
- Thread starter dude
- Start date
The TKI Belt Drive is your best choice. $699 US and $849 in Canada. Sounds pricey but add up a couple drive belts, a couple quickdrive belts and maybe a lost day and you will soon see it is worth it. Besides you can go back to stock when you sell. Take a look on my website for pics.
The 14 QuickDrive belts are breaking but most guys will not see this till above 1000 kms and in the Spring when the snow firms up. I know this as customers are coming to me for the solution. Most are turbo guys breaking QD belts so far but the rest of you will follow if an aggressive rider.
D
dude
Well-known member
Am I wrong here... You gotta be kidding me. The ($196 with tax) belt is manufactured with the cords in place and not pulling out, right??? Are you suggesting the manufacture might has well just sell the belts new with the cords pulling out already?? Hell, why not just rip out all the cord and cut to the chase with the brand new belt. I've done the "cut the pulled cord as close as you can then take a lighter to it" bit... then have the belt grenade on me a couple rides later. And you know when the belt with a pulled cord usually grenades??? about 50 feet from the top of a hill climb with several hundred feet below you... then you know what happens??? the sled usually roles all the way to the bottom of the hill, usually with several roles over the rider. Yeah... you guys that want to go ahead and cut the pulled cords / take some flame to it can role the dice on that one. No thank you! It'll be a new belt for me and maybe use the pulled cord belt as a back up to my back up.
Is it just me or is it that for the most part all the people having belt problems are running stock clutching and gearing? Other than first ride I have never run either. Thanks to some very trust worthy gear heads on here I have always had parts in hand before new sled. Between my sled and wifes we have had 1 blown belt since 07 and that belt had over 1500 miles on it. And that says a lot since we had 2 07 supposed belt/clutch eating revs. Gear um, clutch um, ride um. Enough said. Or not. Flame on.
O
Oregonsledder
Well-known member
I think it's just the opposite. I personally have never had belt problems and I run stock clutching. In my shop the guys with belt problems try aftermarket so called magic and wonder why they are eating belts. Riding style has a lot to do with it, but from what I have seen the manufacturers have it pretty well figured out for the average rider in average conditions.
Good point; as also I don't see anyone talking about breaking in the belt.
At the end of the day of riding; I'll put on a new belt and take it easy on it on the way out; which is at least a good 15 miles. Then when I ride again I take it easy on the way in to the good riding, which is usually another good 15 miles.
So no one has to grab a calculator (lol); that is at least 30 miles of break in on a new belt. Knock on wood, I have NEVER had an issue with a belt going bad before it should and I have been riding for many years.
I have buddies that I ride with that will wait till their belt explodes, throw on a new belt in the middle of the day riding, and wot. Reality is this greatly reduces belt life. Reality is this same buddy could have taken the time prior to his belt blowing; to break in a new belt.
Yes, belts on ALL sleds need to be broken in; and it is VERY easy to take the time to do it.
I'm not saying that there could not be some bad belts out there, but the majority of the time it's user error.
Have tried oem clutch setup and clutch kit (11 series and Mtx, different springs in sek and prim) with out god luck!
I know that I drive quite aggressive but who doesn't with this type of sled!!?? Thats the point when you go steep and deep or?
I also break in my belts quite serious.
Must be driving style or QD system. Personally I think QD system.
I know that I drive quite aggressive but who doesn't with this type of sled!!?? Thats the point when you go steep and deep or?
I also break in my belts quite serious.
Must be driving style or QD system. Personally I think QD system.
Last edited:
D
dude
Well-known member
I've been using these 1115 belts since the 2 900's I had, the 09 dragon 800, the 2 2011 PROS, and now my 2013 PRO. That's 6 sleds running the 1115 belt. I'd say that qualifies as a little experience with the 1115 belts. I Have always broken them in with trail miles before getting on it. Never have I blown out cords anywhere close to 150 miles. In fact I've probably only ever blown cords maybe 2 or 3 times with a 1115 belt, usually on any of my other polaris sleds I'd get around 800 or so miles at which point i would just put a new belt on because I thought I should. I've riden the sheet out of all the sleds mentioned above. Averaging around 2,000 miles per year on all of them. Current sled 2013 PRO blows first cords at 515 miles. Next belt blows cords at 150 miles. Engine mounts are fine. Alignment is good, etc etc. stock clutching.
From reading other post here I'm starting to think the QD system may have something to do with this. Again... Yes, I don't just tool around on my sled to take in the sites. I ride it like in the Polaris commercials as I have on all the other Polaris sleds mentioned above.
I wasn't too upset at the first belt blowing cords at 515 miles, but the second belt at 150 miles didn't seem right to me. That's only 120 miles after 30 miles of breakin then cords pulling??. I have to wonder was my $196 belt was defective. That's why I had a claim made to warranty and to my surprise they recommended to just cut the blown cords and keep using it.
Anyway, not trying to get into a pissing match... Just found there recommendation odd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From reading other post here I'm starting to think the QD system may have something to do with this. Again... Yes, I don't just tool around on my sled to take in the sites. I ride it like in the Polaris commercials as I have on all the other Polaris sleds mentioned above.
I wasn't too upset at the first belt blowing cords at 515 miles, but the second belt at 150 miles didn't seem right to me. That's only 120 miles after 30 miles of breakin then cords pulling??. I have to wonder was my $196 belt was defective. That's why I had a claim made to warranty and to my surprise they recommended to just cut the blown cords and keep using it.
Anyway, not trying to get into a pissing match... Just found there recommendation odd.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
G
geo
Well-known member
I always read that alignment was checked and good but very rarely read the actual #'s or tool that was used.
Most Poo's use a tool that drapes over the primary and you check at the secondary for clearances. Maybe the Poo tool is deadly accurate but I bought one from SLP.
Stamped steel and that raised the first question in my mind on accuracy. Second thing was how consistent is the mounting point (fixed primary sheave). If the sheave is thicker by a bit or thinner by a bit the measured offset would be different by a bit. If there is a burr on the tool the parallelism check could be out.
When I set my SLP tool on the primary I can push it on to set it or place it on to set it and have 2 different measurements at the secondary. If I rotate my primary 120 degrees and set it with the "push on" method, I get 3 different measurements.
These are not huge #'s but 20 and 30 thou. is 20 or 30 thou. So I went back to the more-consistent-for-me of a straight edge mounted in the secondary and measuring to the beginning of the primary face on the fixed sheave.
If you machine a primary face would that not change the way the tool "sets" on the primary and therefore give you a different offset reading at the secondary? Could there be differences in how much is machined off from the factory or casting differences?
The other thing I rarely read is the C to C measurements. My sled came 11.695" out of the crate. The means my belt would be lower in the secondary than if set to 11.5". That means that I start at a taller gearing than asked for. That means the belt does more work, especially in lower ratios.
Just thinking out loud because I haven't had any belt issues with my QD Poo (lucky?). I had plenty of string pullers in the past lol. Always got rid of string pulling but maybe not the heat by using my OCD on setting #1 C to C, #2 parallelism (this is very chassis specific and has little to do with specs IMO), #3 offset.
My clutch alignment #'s for my 13 Pro with a SLP toque stop are 11.5" C to C, parallelism measured off the straight edge from the secondary is 30 thou. difference from the front of the primary to the rear, offset is .615" (this # has worked on a few different sleds with the same width belt) from the bottom of the secondary fixed half face to the bottom of the primary fixed half face.
I lowered gearing this year and love the difference in performance and clutch temps but I've had lower geared sleds that pulled strings until I did my OCD thing.
Most Poo's use a tool that drapes over the primary and you check at the secondary for clearances. Maybe the Poo tool is deadly accurate but I bought one from SLP.
Stamped steel and that raised the first question in my mind on accuracy. Second thing was how consistent is the mounting point (fixed primary sheave). If the sheave is thicker by a bit or thinner by a bit the measured offset would be different by a bit. If there is a burr on the tool the parallelism check could be out.
When I set my SLP tool on the primary I can push it on to set it or place it on to set it and have 2 different measurements at the secondary. If I rotate my primary 120 degrees and set it with the "push on" method, I get 3 different measurements.
These are not huge #'s but 20 and 30 thou. is 20 or 30 thou. So I went back to the more-consistent-for-me of a straight edge mounted in the secondary and measuring to the beginning of the primary face on the fixed sheave.
If you machine a primary face would that not change the way the tool "sets" on the primary and therefore give you a different offset reading at the secondary? Could there be differences in how much is machined off from the factory or casting differences?
The other thing I rarely read is the C to C measurements. My sled came 11.695" out of the crate. The means my belt would be lower in the secondary than if set to 11.5". That means that I start at a taller gearing than asked for. That means the belt does more work, especially in lower ratios.
Just thinking out loud because I haven't had any belt issues with my QD Poo (lucky?). I had plenty of string pullers in the past lol. Always got rid of string pulling but maybe not the heat by using my OCD on setting #1 C to C, #2 parallelism (this is very chassis specific and has little to do with specs IMO), #3 offset.
My clutch alignment #'s for my 13 Pro with a SLP toque stop are 11.5" C to C, parallelism measured off the straight edge from the secondary is 30 thou. difference from the front of the primary to the rear, offset is .615" (this # has worked on a few different sleds with the same width belt) from the bottom of the secondary fixed half face to the bottom of the primary fixed half face.
I lowered gearing this year and love the difference in performance and clutch temps but I've had lower geared sleds that pulled strings until I did my OCD thing.
R
rmscustom
Well-known member
Good info Geo, I was hoping someone would jump into this with some technical info.
I too have the slp torque arm and if I remember right (should write this stuff down) my C to C is 11.565" and have about .045" difference in parallelism front to back on the primary using a trusty straight edge off the secondary. When I get a chance I'll have to measure the offset like you described.
Did you have to slot you engine mounts at all? To get where I'm at I really had to push back with the torque mount.
I too have the slp torque arm and if I remember right (should write this stuff down) my C to C is 11.565" and have about .045" difference in parallelism front to back on the primary using a trusty straight edge off the secondary. When I get a chance I'll have to measure the offset like you described.
Did you have to slot you engine mounts at all? To get where I'm at I really had to push back with the torque mount.
G
geo
Well-known member
I did the same (not correct but worked good so far). Loosen the factory stop and push a bit with the torque rod then re tighten.
When I looked at the mounts last year I thought to myself lol, can't be any less accurate lol. After a 1700 mile season the front PTO mount was the only one to show major wear and it hadn't changed the C to C but my motor is now out a bit (25 thou) vertically (same straight edge).
Haven't changed that mount yet (its in my box) but haven't pulled a string yet either so life is good except for the inversions lol.
When I looked at the mounts last year I thought to myself lol, can't be any less accurate lol. After a 1700 mile season the front PTO mount was the only one to show major wear and it hadn't changed the C to C but my motor is now out a bit (25 thou) vertically (same straight edge).
Haven't changed that mount yet (its in my box) but haven't pulled a string yet either so life is good except for the inversions lol.
As I stated earlier in this thread about some of the gear head gurus I pay attention to on this site Geo is one of them. Thanks G for the valuable info as always.
G
geo
Well-known member
Thanx DT2. Gear head guru LOL?. I joined Snowest to get info and got it by sorting through everything. Just like to pass on the help. Today I'm just another sledder waiting for something fresh without having to make a vacation out of it .
RMS. 15 thou. is not a lot of difference offset wise (but I would change it too lol). I think the bigger # is the parallelism (MO lol).
Take your 45 thou (50% greater than mine) and extend that to the secondary and it becomes a larger #.
We both use the measurement method described in the old Doo race manuals (KISS). Back then 40 to 60 thou was the norm for parallelism and you were told to leave a gap on the stock torque stop. IMO todays engines-bulkheads are more rigid (even the Pro lol). Combine that with our dual torque stops at that end of the engine and maybe it is better to be closer to parallel today than in the past.
If you watch the engine movement on the stand on your Pro and compare it to the movement you saw on your old 670 summit, it quite a bit less. Maybe we need closer to zero today especially with lighter (150 lbs lighter lol) loads.
If it doesn't snow soon I'll have to build a third torque stop lol.
RMS. 15 thou. is not a lot of difference offset wise (but I would change it too lol). I think the bigger # is the parallelism (MO lol).
Take your 45 thou (50% greater than mine) and extend that to the secondary and it becomes a larger #.
We both use the measurement method described in the old Doo race manuals (KISS). Back then 40 to 60 thou was the norm for parallelism and you were told to leave a gap on the stock torque stop. IMO todays engines-bulkheads are more rigid (even the Pro lol). Combine that with our dual torque stops at that end of the engine and maybe it is better to be closer to parallel today than in the past.
If you watch the engine movement on the stand on your Pro and compare it to the movement you saw on your old 670 summit, it quite a bit less. Maybe we need closer to zero today especially with lighter (150 lbs lighter lol) loads.
If it doesn't snow soon I'll have to build a third torque stop lol.
I have -14 assault with challanger extreme track 11-68 weights and im on my 3rd belt with only 260 miles on it. after the first 2 belts ca 180 miles we checked the offset on the clutches , it was 3-4 mm off. we adjusted it with polaris alignment tool . I put on the 3 rd belt and run it on the trail for about 15 miles but after 2 days in the hills it started to pull cords so i guess something else is wrong. my friends ho drive 11,12 and 13 poos dont seem to have any issues with beltwear ????
My 12' Pro blew the factory 1115 belt at 125 miles. I had Carls clutch kit with xxxmodrods hood/console/nose vents, as well as gill vents before it even hit the snow.
I put on a Cat 048 belt and went another 1000+ trouble free miles in hard conditions, deep POW and WOT with no performance or RPM loss.
Besides thinking that the 1115 belt is a expensive POS, I think that venting and keeping your clutches cool is the key, My clutches were always cool to the touch while my buddies riding the same sleds were too hot to touch. Spend a few extra bucks on venting, evacuate all that hot air and let your engine and all its components run cooler for better performance.
And to all who mentioned belt break in, Yes! Just like your motor break in, a component under that much load and stress needs to be broke in properly to perform to its full potential.
my .02 cents
I put on a Cat 048 belt and went another 1000+ trouble free miles in hard conditions, deep POW and WOT with no performance or RPM loss.
Besides thinking that the 1115 belt is a expensive POS, I think that venting and keeping your clutches cool is the key, My clutches were always cool to the touch while my buddies riding the same sleds were too hot to touch. Spend a few extra bucks on venting, evacuate all that hot air and let your engine and all its components run cooler for better performance.
And to all who mentioned belt break in, Yes! Just like your motor break in, a component under that much load and stress needs to be broke in properly to perform to its full potential.
my .02 cents
