Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A SPARE AXYS BELT AND A SPARE ProRide BELT THEY CAN COMPARE??

You are wrong on this, according to Tom. He has mentioned several times he used the Gates engineering data to design his drives including the approved tensioner design. And yes Tom sells the tensioner for the stock belts but what is getting tensioned when they are banjo tight already? He does not agree with the idea, only giving the market what they demand. The belt is tensioned from the outside but not bent backwards as there is no slack for that.

Actually you and Tom are both incorrect. Not saying a Gates engineer did not tell him is was "Okay" but the published "Gates carbon engineering design manual" says it should not be back bent. I can post that if you insist in persisting to claim otherwise.


You tend to spout your opinion as fact quite often and get bent when presented the facts. For that alone I've considered blocking you, but as harmful as your misinformation is, it gives me a laugh from time to time, so I tolerate your views, souly for the entertainment value.


You should probably educate yourself on the products you sell rather than re-spouting the designers sales pitch which is in reality a bunch of BS. FWIW
 
Not sure on the design manual that you have seen or read but the ones I have acess to indicate that uou can back tension. I am not on here to argue or say who's right or wrong. But I know what I am told and the info I payed for. If I am wrong then I guess anyone using these in the industrial industry is wrong also.

Mountainhorse what was name of engineer that you spoke with that told me I was wrong. I would like to speak with him and see if gates has changed there design that now doesn't allow for back tension. I am sure you can share that me me.
 
Actually you and Tom are both incorrect. Not saying a Gates engineer did not tell him is was "Okay" but the published "Gates carbon engineering design manual" says it should not be back bent. I can post that if you insist in persisting to claim otherwise.


You tend to spout your opinion as fact quite often and get bent when presented the facts. For that alone I've considered blocking you, but as harmful as your misinformation is, it gives me a laugh from time to time, so I tolerate your views, souly for the entertainment value.


You should probably educate yourself on the products you sell rather than re-spouting the designers sales pitch which is in reality a bunch of BS. FWIW

Really, your a piece of work. There are some on here that are passionate about this sport and making it better. I don't rely on sales of Tom's products to make my living, I simply believe they are superior products and see the benefits and chose to share this info with others because I like to help. I hope some readers appreciate it as I appreciate posts like Mountain Horse's posts even if I don't always agree with them.
 
Last edited:
I was Incorrect, but Teth-Air still annoys me!

I need to appologize;

I've looked thru both revisions of the POLY CHAIN® GT® CARBON® Belt Drive Systems #17595 4/09 and also the 4/2012 version that I have and can not find any reference to back bending other than in the belt handling and troubleshooting sections.

I must have been recalling the back bending exclusion from the previous Kevlar corded Gates GT and GT2 belts.

The new Carbon belt design manual just references a minimum bend / sprocket diameter and if back bent needs to be 1.3 X that minimum diameter.

So it was I who was in error; and assuming that because the previous belt did not tolerate backhanding that the new one would not either. According to the official Gates Design Manuals that I have, I'd be wrong.
 
Last edited:
SMF.... I think you have a spare of both of these belts in your stable...Right??



04e43eea45806f7e8b266ea1cd24ebc1.jpg

.

Both chaincase sleds.
 
Anyone with the belts to compare?


Teth-air... The Gates Carbon GT belts are not designed for back bending according to the engineers at Gates as well.... but seem to work... Plus, Tom at TKI has been selling the tensioners for the stock belts for a while now... which had me thinking enough to post up a thread on it a few weeks ago on the 16 belt on the 13-15's.

icon3.gif
RUNNING AN AXYS-QuickDrive™ BELT ON A 2013-15 PRO WITH A TENSIONER? FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=405220



Mountainhorse

Still waiting on that contact information for Gates. I will be contacting them first thing in the AM. I need the name of the engineer who told you that they couldn't be back tensioned. I am sure you have that information. You can reach me at 406-850-8091 or please share it on here so that everyone has that info.
 
I need to appologize;

I've looked thru both revisions of the POLY CHAIN® GT® CARBON® Belt Drive Systems #17595 4/09 and also the 4/2012 version that I have and can not find any reference to back bending other than in the belt handling and troubleshooting sections.

I must have been recalling the back bending exclusion from the previous Kevlar corded Gates GT and GT2 belts.

The new Carbon belt design manual just references a minimum bend / sprocket diameter and if back bent needs to be 1.3 X that minimum diameter.

So it was I who was in error; and assuming that because the previous belt did not tolerate backhanding that the new one would not either. According to the official Gates Design Manuals that I have, I'd be wrong.


I accept your apology, it was big of you to admit being wrong. I will try not to be so annoying. Chris
 
To be clear.

Mountainhorse

Still waiting on that contact information for Gates. I will be contacting them first thing in the AM. I need the name of the engineer who told you that they couldn't be back tensioned. I am sure you have that information. You can reach me at 406-850-8091 or please share it on here so that everyone has that info.

Tom...

Thank you for chiming in on this thread.

I can see where you want to be clear as your products you sell rely on this technology. So I'll be clear as well here in this thread.

I spoke with Gates engineering back in November 2012...more than 3 years ago... when I was doing research for the thread in this link. (and others)
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323783

I don't remember the name of the specific engineer from that conversation 3 years ago, nor do I have any notes from back then, unfortunately... but hey, I'm human. Wish I could help you there.

If I recall correctly, the application engineer at Gates that I spoke with was adamant, that for high power applications (like in a 150+ hp snowmobile), back-bending the belts should be minimized or eliminated... and that the amount of bending (idler/belt contact arc... aka "idler wrap") should also be minimized.

Mountainhorse what was name of engineer that you spoke with that told me I was wrong.

I don't recall saying anywhere that there was a Gates engineer that I spoke with... where that Gates engineer told you ("TKI" or "Tom Kobza") that you were "wrong"... AND since I know you are trying to make sure that you are following due-diligence here... I wanted to make that clear... If I did type that somewhere... Please post a link so that I can correct that error.

Since you will be contacting Gates engineering in the AM... Please post a follow up here with notes on your conversation and their official recommendations for back-bending belts in slack-side tensioners... and the degree of idler arc contact in which that can be acceptably done for high-power transmission. I'm especially interested if new designs in their belts have back idlers as preferred or equally preferred method of tensioning.

I'm sure our readers will like to see that as well.

I know that the guys at Yeti/C3 have been saying that 8mm-pitch Mitsuboshi GigaTorque belts they use specifically for back-bending/back-idlers... but have seen no data on that to date either.

The information that the Gates engineer that I spoke with back in 2012 pointed me to this information in the design manual. If memory serves me right... they also were emphatic about the "idler arc of contact" not wrapping around the belt... especially when a reverser is used... like the PERC reverse in the Polaris engines where the slack-side becomes the tension side of the belt when reverse is activated.

Also, one of the big points he made was tension and preload on the belt, and how failures arise from this if not correct, especially magnified when you have the power and and belt speeds of a 150+ HP snowmobile... something he considered significant in a belt drive.

In the troubleshooting guide, they point to a cause of "tooth sheer" and "Belt cracking" as use of Back-side idlers.

If this has changed... and there is an update to this... I'd love to get my hands on a more recent copy than this one from 5/2012 so I am better informed.

All of this being said... there are hundreds of your customers that are happy with your belt drives and C3, which of course, back bend the belt with little or no issues.
Just like I said in the quote of mine that you posted in #26 above.

If you are taking this as an affront to your well made belt drive products... It certainly is not my intent. I am always in a "learning mode", and any additional or updated info you share with us is a plus.

My intent with this thread.. and the thread you've quoted above is to figure out if your tensioner for the factory drive would be good to use with the longer AXYS belt in the ProRide applications for the reasons outlined in the ProRide forum thread.


Gates PolyChain Carbon GT belt design manual #17595, 5/12
https://www.gates.com/~/media/files...ssion/catalogs/pc_carbon_manual17595_2011.pdf

12. Use of Idlers
Use of idlers should be restricted to those cases in which they are functionally
necessary. Idlers are often used as a means of applying tension
when the center distance is not adjustable.

Idlers should be located on the slack side span of the belt drive. General
size recommendations are listed for inside grooved, inside flat, and backside
idlers. In some cases, such as high capacity drives utilizing large
sprockets, idlers as large as the smallest loaded sprocket in the system
may be more appropriate.

Idler Size Recommendations
Outside or backside idlers should be flat and uncrowned; flanges may or
may not be necessary. Drives with flat inside idlers should be tested, as
noise and belt wear may occur.

Idler arc of contact should be held to a minimum. All idlers should be rigidly
mounted in place to minimize movement or deflection during drive startup
and operation.

14. Self-Generated Tension
All synchronous belt drives exhibit a self-generating or self-tightening characteristic when transmitting a load. Laboratory testing has shown this
characteristic to be similar with all tooth profiles. The designer/user should
be aware that self-tensioning can result in increased bearing and shaft
loads and reduced drive performance; i.e., short belt life. This can be
avoided by following proper tensioning procedures.

While belt overtensioning can impose higher bearing and shaft loads and
lead to reduced belt life, undertensioning can result in self-tensioning.
Properly designed and tensioned drives will not be significantly affected by
self-generated tension.

When a belt is too loose for the design load, the self-tensioning characteristic
results in the belt teeth climbing out of the sprocket grooves, leading
to increased stresses on the belt teeth, accelerated tooth wear and
reduced belt life. When a belt is severely undertensioned, this self-tensioning
characteristic can result in the belt ratcheting (jumping teeth). When
this occurs, significant shaft separation forces are instantaneously developed
in the drive, resulting in damage to bearings, shafts, and other drive
components including the belt.

NOTE: This is true for all synchronous belts.

Maximum drive performance and belt life are achieved when the belt is
properly tensioned for the design load and maintained.


BTW:... Keep up the good work and thank you for helping out Jessie (rocknester) with his TKI drive questions... Even though he broke one of the bolts in the bulkhead for the tensioner...It worked out fine for him!





.
 
Last edited:
So in an earlier post it was stated the the pro runs a 68 cog and an Axys a 69. Does this mean the Axys has a longer centre to centre from driveshaft to jackshaft? The reason I am curious is I'm planning on installing a 3.2 on a quick drive Axys 162. I have 2 other questions related to this. Are the splines on the steel and aluminum drive shafts the same and will the 21/44 pullies from a 2015 model bolt up to an Axys? My thoughts are to order a complete shaft and driver set from a 3" model and use the 15 gears to lower the ratio. I had this same set up with a 3" on a 2015 and was very happy with it. Given the lowering one top tooth and adding one on the bottom I'm assuming the same belt should work. Has anyone done this?
 
So in an earlier post it was stated the the pro runs a 68 cog and an Axys a 69. Does this mean the Axys has a longer centre to centre from driveshaft to jackshaft? The reason I am curious is I'm planning on installing a 3.2 on a quick drive Axys 162. I have 2 other questions related to this. Are the splines on the steel and aluminum drive shafts the same and will the 21/44 pullies from a 2015 model bolt up to an Axys? My thoughts are to order a complete shaft and driver set from a 3" model and use the 15 gears to lower the ratio. I had this same set up with a 3" on a 2015 and was very happy with it. Given the lowering one top tooth and adding one on the bottom I'm assuming the same belt should work. Has anyone done this?

You are asking a lot there and I may not have all your answers but here is what I know.

The Splines are all the same. The way I know this is my 13-15 TKI kit fits right on to my 16 AXYS 2.6 with the change of the back plate. The Chain drive models also have the same splines because i know some guys put steel shafts in their Pro's last year and with Tom's kits, we use the same top gear for the Belt to Belt kits and the Chain to Belt kits. The number of teeth on the lower gear just changes as the case restricts using larger diameter gears. When comparing the 15 QD parts to the 16 QD parts I only see that the 16 has a larger diameter top pulley and longer belt. Everything else looks the same. The bottom gears look identical to each other but I did notice different part numbers. I hope this reflects better tolerances in the spline sizes than what I saw for the 15's.
 
So in an earlier post it was stated the the pro runs a 68 cog and an Axys a 69. Does this mean the Axys has a longer centre to centre from driveshaft to jackshaft? The reason I am curious is I'm planning on installing a 3.2 on a quick drive Axys 162. I have 2 other questions related to this. Are the splines on the steel and aluminum drive shafts the same and will the 21/44 pullies from a 2015 model bolt up to an Axys? My thoughts are to order a complete shaft and driver set from a 3" model and use the 15 gears to lower the ratio. I had this same set up with a 3" on a 2015 and was very happy with it. Given the lowering one top tooth and adding one on the bottom I'm assuming the same belt should work. Has anyone done this?

The AXYS-mtn has a slightly longer C-2-C distance than the ProRide-mtn sleds for the jack/drive shafts. 197.2mm (Axys) compared to 191.2mm ProRide. 6mm/.24" longer for the Axys-Mtn. Not as much as I would have thought. There is slightly more clearance on the AXYS as compared to the ProRide... but not by much.

As T-A said, the splines are the same.

Although I don't have the sprockets here.... Polaris Parts lists the AXYS-Mtn with QuickDrive™ as having different top and bottom gears than the ProRide-Mtn with the QuickDrive™.

QuickDrive factory gearing.
Axys 22 top cog, 43 bottom
ProRide: 21 top cog, 44 bottom

More math than I care to do... but easy to try if you have the gears...My "gut" is telling me it will be a no-go situation... but heck... worth a try for someone with both sets of cogs and belts in their hands.

But... for that extra load, and diminished clearance that the 3.2" lug will bring. I think you would be better served with an aftermarket belt drive or a chain drive case... Also... not sure that the extra .2" of lug will be outweighed by the diminished clearance in an configuration that is already tight for the factory 3" track.... an X3 or factory Series-7 track may be your best bet.




.
 
Last edited:
The AXYS-mtn has a slightly longer C-2-C distance than the ProRide-mtn sleds for the jack/drive shafts. 197.2mm (Axys) compared to 191.2mm ProRide. 6mm/.24" longer for the Axys-Mtn. Not as much as I would have thought. There is slightly more clearance on the AXYS as compared to the ProRide... but not by much.

As T-A said, the splines are the same.

Although I don't have the sprockets here.... Polaris Parts lists the AXYS-Mtn with QuickDrive™ as having different top and bottom gears than the ProRide-Mtn with the QuickDrive™.

QuickDrive factory gearing.
Axys 22 top cog, 43 bottom
ProRide: 21 top cog, 44 bottom

More math than I care to do... but easy to try if you have the gears...My "gut" is telling me it will be a no-go situation... but heck... worth a try for someone with both sets of cogs and belts in their hands.

But... for that extra load, and diminished clearance that the 3.2" lug will bring. I think you would be better served with an aftermarket belt drive or a chain drive case... Also... not sure that the extra .2" of lug will be outweighed by the diminished clearance in an configuration that is already tight for the factory 3" track.... an X3 or factory Series-7 track may be your best bet.



.

I have both QD sets at home and can look at them closer tonight and maybe get some photos if there is still interest for a confirmation.

Chris
 
Cool Chris.. would it be possible to see the AXYS belt on a ProRide too?


.
 
Last edited:
So in an earlier post it was stated the the pro runs a 68 cog and an Axys a 69. Does this mean the Axys has a longer centre to centre from driveshaft to jackshaft? The reason I am curious is I'm planning on installing a 3.2 on a quick drive Axys 162. I have 2 other questions related to this. Are the splines on the steel and aluminum drive shafts the same and will the 21/44 pullies from a 2015 model bolt up to an Axys? My thoughts are to order a complete shaft and driver set from a 3" model and use the 15 gears to lower the ratio. I had this same set up with a 3" on a 2015 and was very happy with it. Given the lowering one top tooth and adding one on the bottom I'm assuming the same belt should work. Has anyone done this?

Yes, I'm currently running my '14 pulleys on my Axys. So far so good.
 
Rich...Sounds interesting.

What, exactly, is your setup? Tensioner/Deflection-roller? Which Belt?

Post up some pics and lets see that bad boy!!


.
 
Cool Chris.. would it be possible to see the AXYS belt on a ProRide too?


.

You are right on the gearing, I was going by memory when I though the bottom gears were the same size.

All belt pitch and widths appear the same. just belt length differs. (visually)

So if a guy ran the 15 gears with the 16 belt and a tensioner the final gearing would be about 12% lower than the 2.25 ratio (due to 7 tooth drivers)the 13-15's had. My question would be "would the belt last being bent backwards?" when the Polaris instructions say never back bend these belts??

It hardly seems worth it to me as you need to be willing to sacrifice a belt, you would still need to buy a spare belt and tensioner and then need to find some old gears.

2016-01-04 16.37.15.jpg 2016-01-04 16.38.24.jpg 2016-01-04 16.49.04.jpg 2016-01-04 16.49.09.jpg 2016-01-04 16.36.25.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rich...Sounds interesting.

What, exactly, is your setup? Tensioner/Deflection-roller? Which Belt?

Post up some pics and lets see that bad boy!!


.

Both pulleys are from my '14 and using the Axys belt and the Fire n Ice belt deflection kit, no tensioner is needed. I also switch out the 2.86 7T drivers to 2.86 8T drivers.
 
Last edited:
If you look at my previous pictures, the p/n are on the pulleys and it looks as these are the same as my 2016.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top