Clutch weights lots o questions

[Destroyer]

I have a new crossfire that I put a powerclaw track on.
I was looking at getting set of cpc adjustable weights.

I ride at 0-3000' 50% of the time and the other 50 at 6000-10000.

stock M's with 55/65 gearing cat is suggesting 71.5 grams at 0-3000
crossfires with 60/60 gearing cat is suggesting about 4 grams less!
over 9000 they suggested only 58 grams for the crossfire.

Don't know if I should gear down yet so it makes my decission on what weights to get even more impossible. I obviously have to ride it first.

What weights should I get?
Do any of the polaris weights work in the 2010 cat primary?
Should I gear down?
What's the best way to change the weights?

 

[XFIRE800]

Are you sure about the M and crossfire weights? In 09 at 6-9000' crossfire ran 73 grams with 60/60 and M ran 68 grams with 57/63 with the old motor. With the shorter track wouldnt you need to run more weight to keep the rpms down?

 

[Destroyer]

That's what i said in a post before. Lower gears won't yield higher rpm's. And ya I'm sure...I went to the dealer just to compare the two.

Secondary is load sensing. more load=more rpm

 

[Destroyer]

ttt

 

[Destroyer]

The only reason I can come up with is

Fact:
secondary is load sensing (more load=more rpm)
141 1.5 cobra (stock) is less load than a 153 power claw (more load)

but the 60/60 gears should add to the load of the crossfire. Plus I added a 2.25 track.

I'm assuming that my 2010 crossfire with the 141 power claw is going to require more than the stock 67 grams weights at 0-3000'. Because I'm adding load.

 

[bart0678]

you keep referencing a load equation but im not sure its correct. yes the secondary or (driven clutch) is Load sensing but load in this case doesnt equal track weight.

lower gearing will make turning the load of the track easier which will make the secondary shift quicker. you will need to lower the primary weight to compensate for this. when you lower the gear ratio on a cvt transmission you need to lower the fly weight. when you raise gearing you dont always raise weight. its not a linear equation like your trying to make it.


adam

 

[Destroyer]

So then cat missed the nail and hit their thumb with one of these stock clutch setups.

 

[Pro116]

Most aftermarket weights have a more agressive profile then stock.So for example 71 gram cat weight and a 71 gram cutler won't run the same rpm the more agrssive weight will run lower rpm's

 

[Dam Dave]

are the Cams the same for those 2 sleds, that is part of the equation as well

 

[76FOMOCO]

more load in a constant world but, alt= less hp = more load=less weight and yes profile does make a huge difference. this is why the adjustable weights are the way to go. Get a set you are at the top of at sea level and this way you can drop weight at alt. most swing 10grams so you will have to do the home work for the lower alt.

 

[Destroyer]

yes the cams are the same. It doesn't make any sence why the SHORTER sled has way LIGHTER weights

bart0678. The info in your post is contradicting. You said lower gearing (higher ratio)=easier to spin=secondary shift quicker. SO with that being said...If the secondary shifted quicker your primary would be MORE loaded making less rpm. therefore needing less weight. That makes sense

But you also said when lowering the ratio (taller gearing) on a cvt system you need to lower flyweight. That doesn't make sense. That's the exact opposite of what you said before. This means if the load is greater, the secondary would shift slower, making less load on the primary. YOU WOULD NOT LOWER THE WEIGHT, you would have to add.

Cat is trying to change the gearing to compensate for the load PLUS they are taking weight out of the primary. The only way it makes sense is if the load of the 141 with a 2.11 ratio is way less than the 153 with a 2.5 ratio. Do you think it would equal 4.5 grams per cam of difference in the load? I don't.