Idea: Axys spindles and rear tunnel brackets on a Pro?

[LoudHandle]

From the patent.

"It should also be noted that the center line 670 of the driveshaft has not been lowered relative to a ground plane 676 but rather the remaining portion of the chassis has been raised relative to the ground plane 676. In the embodiment shown, the body panel 650 has been raised by approximately two inches relative to the ground plane 676. As shown, and in a first embodiment, the distance 677 between the body panel 650 and the ground plane 676 is 9.12 inches (231.647 mm). In the embodiment depicted in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 53</figref>, the corresponding distance 678 is 7.261 inches (184.432 mm). Thus, the end result of the design changes mentioned above has raised the ground clearance of the body panel 650 relative to the ground plane, and relative to the top surface of the snow.


Specifically, this has been accomplished by providing a revised bulkhead portion 608A (<figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIGS. 56 and 60</figref>), which is provided with a semi-circular portion 608B profiled to receive the drive mechanism 640. Bulkhead portion 608A defines a drive shaft mount portion for drive mechanism 640. In addition, and as mentioned above, the revised spindle 634 has been elongated which raises the location of the upper and lower control arms relative to the previous snowmobiles.


Also, the tunnel 606 is raised relative to the ground by moving the connection of the front control arm 616 relative to the tunnel 606. Namely, the connection point between the two is shown at 690 in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 55</figref>. As shown in <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 59</figref>, the distance from the bottom of the chassis at 650 to the connection point 690 is shown as distance 686. In the first embodiment, the distance 686 is 3.34 inches (84.84 mm) and in the embodiment of <figref idrefs="DRAWINGS">FIG. 53</figref>, the analogous distance 674 is 5.34 inches (135.64 mm)."





Link to pic.


http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US8733773B2/US08733773-20140527-D00000.png


Lots of pics and measurements in the Patent.


http://www.google.com/patents/US8733773




So the Driveshaft pretty much is in the same position relative to the ground and skid mounting Points but with higher running boards, and the the bulk is higher and the spindles below the lower a-arm is equally taller.
The Engine is lower in the chassie compared to the old pro becuse of different Engine mounts but probably higher of the ground due to the higher bulk.

So assuming the Patent verbiage and dimensions are accurate (which is suspect because they claimed 1 3/8" at the release instead of the 2" that is in the verbiage). Regardless of whether it is 1 3/8" or 2"; if the driveshaft is essentially in the same location and the chassis raised the 2", but they only stretched the C to C of the Chain Case / QD 1/4" the Jackshaft would indeed need to be lower in the AXYS chassis than in the PRO chassis.

So to make a PRO behave similar to the AXYS you need to lower the skis, driveshaft, and rear suspension relative to the chassis. The CofG will be slightly higher than the AXYS because we can't do much to lower the engine but on a budget we can do quite a bit to the old PRO to emulate the changes we see in the AXYS.

 

[ullose272]

Also remember that some of the axys handling could be attributed to the 3 lb lghter crankshaft. If you have ridden a 600 pro kinda the same feeling. Its amazing how much less rotating mass help

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[revrider07]

There is lots of value in the pro at there current market price and with a few upgrades it will compete with the axys. With lowering the of the motor will an 800 ho bolt into the pro chassis?

 

[sportsterdanne]

The top of the tunnel looks to be pretty much the same as the old pro or it may be raised the 1/4" to explain the increased c to c (for track clearance ?) Thats why they have a higher gastank and seat.

So assuming the Patent verbiage and dimensions are accurate (which is suspect because they claimed 1 3/8" at the release instead of the 2" that is in the verbiage). Regardless of whether it is 1 3/8" or 2"; if the driveshaft is essentially in the same location and the chassis raised the 2", but they only stretched the C to C of the Chain Case / QD 1/4" the Jackshaft would indeed need to be lower in the AXYS chassis than in the PRO chassis.

So to make a PRO behave similar to the AXYS you need to lower the skis, driveshaft, and rear suspension relative to the chassis. The CofG will be slightly higher than the AXYS because we can't do much to lower the engine but on a budget we can do quite a bit to the old PRO to emulate the changes we see in the AXYS.

 

[LPIdaho]

I'd be interested in knowing if the Jackshaft is in nearly the same location? Yes the Center to Center got stretched a 1/4" but did they drop the jackshaft when they lowered the engine in the chassis? It would be enlightening to actually get some hard dimensional comparisons between the PRO ride RMK and the AXYS RMK. I'd hedge my bet that the actual driveshaft is lower; as is the Jackshaft, engine, ski and rear suspension. Someone has to have both and not enough snow to ride (= bored?) maybe. Please

Despite what has been said above, from everything I have seen and measured, the motor is in exactly the same place as the PRO relative to the bottom of the bulkhead, and steering post; so it's not farther forward/back or any higher/lower relative to the bottom of the bulkhead. The driveshaft is essentially in the same spot as is the jackshaft relative to the ground.

 

[LoudHandle]

Despite what has been said above, from everything I have seen and measured, the motor is in exactly the same place as the PRO relative to the bottom of the bulkhead, and steering post; so it's not farther forward/back or any higher/lower relative to the bottom of the bulkhead. The driveshaft is essentially in the same spot as is the jackshaft relative to the ground.

So you're saying they only lowered the engine relative to the bulkhead in the Flat lander models? They sure made a big deal about the straps being part of the crankcase to allow the engine to be lower in the chassis. If they did not lower the engine in the RMK's that may be why the left bulkhead half is a different part number than the flat lander sleds? Or is there another reason?

As for our views I think we are saying the same thing just saying it differently. If we use the ground as the baseline like you did; the skis, track and rear suspension / driveshaft / jack shaft (+~1/4"), tunnel top height is the same as the PRO ride. The rest of the chassis is what got raised the 1 3/8". Correct?

 

[PSI 800]

C Burandt has put the new lightweight crank into the pro motor with some machining last year.

 

[PSI 800]

I suppose a guy could do what we did in the old days when we dropped and rolled our chaincases, which was cut them in half and add in an inch or so of material to allow to run the big drivers and have lots of snow evac clearance. So having said that if you run the belt drive you would have to run a geardown kit with a longerbelt and tensioner like a TKI or a C3powersports thus eliminating the need for an anti stab kit.

 

[sportsterdanne]

The left bulkhead probably is different because of the steering, you have the pitman arm on the left side on the sleds with vertical steering.
the top mount is on the overstructure wich is different from the flatlander but the bottom mount is in the bulkhead.

So you're saying they only lowered the engine relative to the bulkhead in the Flat lander models? They sure made a big deal about the straps being part of the crankcase to allow the engine to be lower in the chassis. If they did not lower the engine in the RMK's that may be why the left bulkhead half is a different part number than the flat lander sleds? Or is there another reason?

As for our views I think we are saying the same thing just saying it differently. If we use the ground as the baseline like you did; the skis, track and rear suspension / driveshaft / jack shaft (+~1/4"), tunnel top height is the same as the PRO ride. The rest of the chassis is what got raised the 1 3/8". Correct?

 

[Killer Time Racing]

Won't be long and someone will hang ax plastics on a PRO and then the finger pointing will start all over again !!

 

[code red]

So looking at this thread has anyone actually put the axys spindles on a pro then? Did it work well if it was done?

 

[toyotarockhead22]

I'm looking to do this on my pro. Now that the axys has been out for awhile has anyone done this and had possitive results? Looking for updates

 

[Caleb Fox]

I'm looking to do this on my pro. Now that the axys has been out for awhile has anyone done this and had possitive results? Looking for updates

Me too! Would love to know what works and how to do it. Thanks.

 

[Caleb Fox]

You could measure and build the inner plates for the drop brackets. They are just .080 aluminum with a flange folded out on each side with 2 - 6mm rivnuts. Then just order KMODs drop bracket covers for his skid which still has the stock skid hole in it.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

Do you know of any kits available now yet it’s been years since this post? Thanks

 

[Caleb Fox]

So assuming the Patent verbiage and dimensions are accurate (which is suspect because they claimed 1 3/8" at the release instead of the 2" that is in the verbiage). Regardless of whether it is 1 3/8" or 2"; if the driveshaft is essentially in the same location and the chassis raised the 2", but they only stretched the C to C of the Chain Case / QD 1/4" the Jackshaft would indeed need to be lower in the AXYS chassis than in the PRO chassis.

So to make a PRO behave similar to the AXYS you need to lower the skis, driveshaft, and rear suspension relative to the chassis. The CofG will be slightly higher than the AXYS because we can't do much to lower the engine but on a budget we can do quite a bit to the old PRO to emulate the changes we see in the AXYS.

What is the easiest way to achieve this? I’d love to try it. Thanks

 

[phazerdeelux]

I did axys offset spindles on my 12 assault rmk (already lower front skid holes) and honestly didn’t notice that much of a difference. If anything it seemed to make my front shocks compress more when I got on sled. Or maybe I’ve been eating too much. The added front ground clearance is good enough for me