NEW 2024 SUMMIT HCE just announced

[caper11]

G5’s are so fun to ride. I’m not much of a meadow rider or a wide open hill rider but my 165 turbo would flip over on a dime with minimal effort which is a very useful trick when a tree line closes out. You should really ride a g5 for 10 rides before doing any work. I got 50 rides in and I know what needs done now for my 24.

Yep they are fun.
I rode a stock G5, didn’t like it and the ride height was definitely lower on a stock valved expert. I can still get it to flip over anytime I want. The integral valve body on my sled is pretty cool, same as what comes on the HCE, lots of adjustment and kinda acts as a lockout when needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jviper]

Yep they are fun.
I rode a stock G5, didn’t like it and the ride height was definitely lower on a stock valved expert. I can still get it to flip over anytime I want. The integral valve body on my sled is pretty cool, same as what comes on the HCE, lots of adjustment and kinda acts as a lockout when needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do the enzos with the sway bar disconnected raise the ride height?

 

[caper11]

Do the enzos with the sway bar disconnected raise the ride height?

I have not needed to remove the sway bar disconnect. My front shocks have 90lb springs on them on setting 3.
The revalve eliminates the soft saggy shock at the top of the travel like the stock suspension has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jviper]

I have not needed to remove the sway bar disconnect. My front shocks have 90lb springs on them on setting 3.
The revalve eliminates the soft saggy shock at the top of the travel like the stock suspension has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. When I spoke to tim he mentioned disconnecting the sway bar with his pro kit.

 

[caper11]

Ok. When I spoke to tim he mentioned disconnecting the sway bar with his pro kit.

His pro kit is c40’s all around, its stiffer than my setup I have the high performance package.

I dont jump or huck it off cliffs so I didn’t feel the c-40 in the ski shocks were something for me.

Did Tim mention about the integral shocks were going to be on the fronts c-40’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jviper]

His pro kit is c40’s all around, its stiffer than my setup I have the high performance package.

I dont jump or huck it off cliffs so I didn’t feel the c-40 in the ski shocks were something for me.

Did Tim mention about the integral shocks were going to be on the fronts c-40’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes he said they will be integral on the front ski shock this year as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caper11]

From what I hear there are no HCE available to the public like the 2024’s

 

[Racer220]

I believe that will be the case. Through the grapevine, BRP is discontinuing production of the HCE, buying back any unsold dealer stock and allocating those units to the race department. I most likely won't have any involvement for 2025 except for Jackson, but the last thing I heard was it's a one and done production. Good idea, and probably could have gained traction had it not been for C*vid and the market craziness that has ensued. I think the market is still primarily going to be dominated by the factory turbos and potential for new chassis. There's just not enough influence from hillclimbs and freestyle like there was 15-20 years ago. I'm hoping for changes in pricing before any new platforms. G4 and G5 sleds have enough to keep the best of the best going for years.

Got one HCE for sale in the swapmeet if anyone is looking to get their hands on one that has warranty left

 

[NHRoadking]

I believe that will be the case. Through the grapevine, BRP is discontinuing production of the HCE, buying back any unsold dealer stock and allocating those units to the race department. I most likely won't have any involvement for 2025 except for Jackson, but the last thing I heard was it's a one and done production. Good idea, and probably could have gained traction had it not been for C*vid and the market craziness that has ensued. I think the market is still primarily going to be dominated by the factory turbos and potential for new chassis. There's just not enough influence from hillclimbs and freestyle like there was 15-20 years ago. I'm hoping for changes in pricing before any new platforms. G4 and G5 sleds have enough to keep the best of the best going for years.

Got one HCE for sale in the swapmeet if anyone is looking to get their hands on one that has warranty left

G4 and G5s suffer from two issues that could use fixing: a steep approach angle for the track; and excess rotating mass up high (clutch and chain drive).

Cat and Poo have addressed those issues. It would be great to see Doo do the same in the G6.

 

[Calvin42]

G4 and G5s suffer from two issues that could use fixing: a steep approach angle for the track; and excess rotating mass up high (clutch and chain drive).

Cat and Poo have addressed those issues. It would be great to see Doo do the same in the G6.

Not sure I agree. Maybe on the approach angle, but not the rotating mass. My G5 is super playful and nimble. The Poo is so planted, I hate riding it. Yes, if that's what you're use to, then by all means. I've had a number of G4's and G5's. Wasn't anything I disliked about any of them. I prefer the T-motion over non T-motion. I've owned plenty of Poo's. I'll stick with Doo.

 

[jcjc1]

what is the alleged improvement of having lower rotating mass? i mean, in terms of something that can actually be felt?

 

[turboless terry]

Not sure I agree. Maybe on the approach angle, but not the rotating mass. My G5 is super playful and nimble. The Poo is so planted, I hate riding it. Yes, if that's what you're use to, then by all means. I've had a number of G4's and G5's. Wasn't anything I disliked about any of them. I prefer the T-motion over non T-motion. I've owned plenty of Poo's. I'll stick with Doo.

Doos are more playful and have always been. But they don't crawl up on snow like a poo or cat because of steep approach. They also wheelie a ton more. That makes them more fun until you're trying to get up something.
The high rotating weight is a big difference. Gen5 is easy and would be a bunch easier if rotating weight was lower. Not going to happen with rider forward. I am actually good with the way they are. They don't need to be like polaris or cat. Turns out they already have that option.

 

[MTsled3]

what is the alleged improvement of having lower rotating mass? i mean, in terms of something that can actually be felt?

Lower rotating mass = lower rotational inertia.

In simple terms, rotational inertia is how difficult it is to change the rotational velocity of the object around a given rotational axis.

Picture a bicycle wheel when you were a kid. Bike upside down on the grass, and you spin the wheel as fast as you can. Now try to flip the bike over and you feel resistance. Stop the wheel, and resistance goes away. That's rotational inertia. Every spinning part on a sled creates that resistance. Track, brake disc, jackshaft, secondary, primary, crankshaft, etc.

The further these pieces are from the handlebars(aka lower on the sled), the more leverage you have to overcome the rotational inertia to tip the sled over. On the Doos, the secondary clutch, which is a large, spinny piece, is higher on the sled, closer to the handlebars, allowing less leverage to counteract rotational inertia.

 

[turboless terry]

Lower rotating mass = lower rotational inertia.

In simple terms, rotational inertia is how difficult it is to change the rotational velocity of the object around a given rotational axis.

Picture a bicycle wheel when you were a kid. Bike upside down on the grass, and you spin the wheel as fast as you can. Now try to flip the bike over and you feel resistance. Stop the wheel, and resistance goes away. That's rotational inertia. Every spinning part on a sled creates that resistance. Track, brake disc, jackshaft, secondary, primary, crankshaft, etc.

The further these pieces are from the handlebars(aka lower on the sled), the more leverage you have to overcome the rotational inertia to tip the sled over. On the Doos, the secondary clutch, which is a large, spinny piece, is higher on the sled, closer to the handlebars, allowing less leverage to counteract rotational inertia.

Exactly

 

[jcjc1]

good explanation and i understand the physics but my question is do the sleds need to be more tippy? i'm all for it but my freeride with 34" front end and even when it had the 35" front end is plenty easy to tip. can't see it really being an issue and def can't see brp doing a design change in a current generation year just for this. maybe on a new chassis tho.

 

[Driver]

Its annoying when people take one small part of sled design and blame it for all the issues because its not that simple. BRP weight is way more centered (packed more tightly) as pol using chassis layout from 80s or 90s where engine, drivetrain, tank and everything is still in line just like in the old days. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

BRP design philosophy is very different to Poo. They both do great on their own ways, which one you like is up to your personal preference.

If you think about the weight difference, main difference comes from the engine package. Etec direct injection technology adds weight significantly with all the fuel systems, electronics, etc compared Pols more simple traditional engine package.

On Pol you get that simple, cheap, lightweight, easy to work with combination. On the minus side is the reliability and longevity.

On Doo you have more everyday customer friendly, precise, durable and fuel efficient technology. On the minus side there is complexity and more weight. Doo handles these disadvantages with tighter packing and working towards more centered design as it has been since first rev.

Imagine you have 40lbs barbel vs 40lbs plate on you hands on the gym and you are trying to turn around fast. Which one is easier, with the long barbell or plate as same weight? Excactly, its the plate because the weight is more centered.

But in the end you have to think that are tons of other attributes that come in to play that will affect the riding charasteristics:
-Front suspension geometry, spindle design, shock calibrations and the ski
-Rear suspension geometry, attack angle, shock calibrations and track
-Wheelbase (distance between drive shaft and spindle)
-Weight distribution (The best is most lowered, centered weight)
-Weight itself plays a big factor... Think about Yamaha where all the weight is on the skis
-Power and how the power is delivered. More power will always compensate the weight
-Etc etc

Doo has its own path and Pol has its own. They both do great. But saying that "this one thing is the problem" is like way too cheap considering all the engineering going into these machines.

 

[Sheetmetalfab]

Its annoying when people take one small part of sled design and blame it for all the issues because its not that simple. BRP weight is way more centered (packed more tightly) as pol using chassis layout from 80s or 90s where engine, drivetrain, tank and everything is still in line just like in the old days. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

BRP design philosophy is very different to Poo. They both do great on their own ways, which one you like is up to your personal preference.

If you think about the weight difference, main difference comes from the engine package. Etec direct injection technology adds weight significantly with all the fuel systems, electronics, etc compared Pols more simple traditional engine package.

On Pol you get that simple, cheap, lightweight, easy to work with combination. On the minus side is the reliability and longevity.

On Doo you have more everyday customer friendly, precise, durable and fuel efficient technology. On the minus side there is complexity and more weight. Doo handles these disadvantages with tighter packing and working towards more centered design as it has been since first rev.

Imagine you have 40lbs barbel vs 40lbs plate on you hands on the gym and you are trying to turn around fast. Which one is easier, with the long barbell or plate as same weight? Excactly, its the plate because the weight is more centered.

But in the end you have to think that are tons of other attributes that come in to play that will affect the riding charasteristics:
-Front suspension geometry, spindle design, shock calibrations and the ski
-Rear suspension geometry, attack angle, shock calibrations and track
-Wheelbase (distance between drive shaft and spindle)
-Weight distribution (The best is most lowered, centered weight)
-Weight itself plays a big factor... Think about Yamaha where all the weight is on the skis
-Power and how the power is delivered. More power will always compensate the weight
-Etc etc

Doo has its own path and Pol has its own. They both do great. But saying that "this one thing is the problem" is like way too cheap considering all the engineering going into these machines.

The other difference is horizontal vs vertical steering.

Harley steering vs sport bike ish.

The body positioning is different to accomplish similar maneuvers.

 

[jcjc1]

excellent post, Driver.

 

[NHRoadking]

The G6 should be the cure for all complaints.

 

[Teth-Air]

The G6 should be the cure for all complaints.

Do you think BRP is interested in moving forward on a G6 when the market is flooded and the blue collar economy is questionable? I would like to see some more custom builds to see what the perfect sled really looks like. Maybe shoehorn an etec turbo in a Catalyst chassis? What other combo would be good? Often manufactureres look to the aftermarket or racers to see what mods would make their sleds better. Big bores, turbos, wizzy suspension etc. all started on custom builds.