I think Im going to get rid of my 44-45 mph trackspeed setup and swap it out for the 41-42 mph trackspeed instead. Its obviously much better. Boy I should go back to the books. I guess I had it all wrong.
Joe
Joe
New HeelClickers in my XP are kickin butt
- Thread starter Original Tetonice
- Start date
Ya, I guess I want to know how this setup out performs a properly working 08 setup?? I have 2 08's. My dads is totally stock, runs 46 to 48 mph track speed with a 163 track. Dead consistent. So how is this better?? Throttle response?? Backshift?? I realize that its better than the 09 setup but thats is NOTHING to brag about. A fat girl on a phazer could damn near outrun a stock setup 09. (I have one!! Big turd imo)
S
snowrdr
Well-known member
S
Sledsniper
Well-known member
Is this center roller the actual HC set up?
T
tollen77
Member
Thought I'd chime in here. I'm actually with OT on this one in that this sounds like a legit improvement on the stock TRA arm design. For those who haven't heard of this - and who could blame you, Supertorquer hasn't updated their website in a decade - it's called a Central Roller Arm (or CRA) and it simply is a arm that has the roller in the middle of the arm rather than at the end. This allows the arm to be completely balanced at the point that pushes on the ramp which has some design efficiencies. It is a completely different arm than the Heel Clicker.
I don't have a set yet, but I think hearing from Snowrdr and OT (who I beleive initially didn't think this design would be an improvement) I will be getting one.
Thanks for all your input guys!
I don't have a set yet, but I think hearing from Snowrdr and OT (who I beleive initially didn't think this design would be an improvement) I will be getting one.
Thanks for all your input guys!
1st off i've used the Original HC ( 2001/2002 and 2004), Thundershifter and Team Adjustable Rollers in the TRA....each of the just mentioned parts are an Improvement over stock TRA parts....Thats why i keep using them because they work and improve performance. As for the design Randy and his team of engineers at HC are darn smart. I think one of the reason they recommend peak rpm to be 7900 rpm for the 800R is becuase of the torque at 7900 vs 8150 where the torque tends to flaten out. For deep mountain snow riding it makes more sense to tune the TRA to run at the "peakest torque" of the powerband. There ramp design and roller/weight postion on the arm have been engineered and matched to run in what can be refered to as the "sweet spot" of the torque curve as the roller and ramp shift out.
Ask yourself this question does the "TRA Overdrive" really matter when your mountain riding ? Everyone talks about full shift out. Is full shift out where all the torque is ? Deep snow mountain riding is all about torque.
At 9000' in fresh chest deep snow nobody is busting powder with a stock 800 163 at 45,46,47,48.,49,50,51 or 52 mph. let alone with a 280# rider. LOL
OT
R
Red-eye
Well-known member
efficency is the gain, like I stated before xmas when I tried to get a thread going about this. It is a lever which will do the same job with less effort. Plus it will shift right out because of this which the TRA needed. Though I have not finished testing it, I think with the 383 belt (being a softer compound than that 377 bandaid slipping monster ) and proper alighnment the heat problem will be all but gone.
Agree... "efficiancy" is the gain.
OT
OT
You guy's are beginning to make some sense here.....I am getting nervous!!!
S
snowrdr
Well-known member
Not sure OT if you have noticed this, but when I took mine off after 300 miles to do a re-check, I noticed that the belt does seem to ride much higher in the Primary at max RPM. I did resurface my primary prior to running this setup this year and I had a black belt line about 1/4 of an inch from the very top of the primary. Also I do notice of all things that the belt dust was reduced inside the primary, let just say significantly.
My only issue in running this setup was getting the lower retaining pins to not stick inside the new arms bushing. I did make some time consuming modifications to those lower pins, but then found out I need to replace them.
My only issue in running this setup was getting the lower retaining pins to not stick inside the new arms bushing. I did make some time consuming modifications to those lower pins, but then found out I need to replace them.
S
snowrdr
Well-known member
Alot faster upshift. The way I resurface my clutches I can really tell that more of the surface is being used compared to the stock set up.
rpm
OT- thanks for the post...been to busy to get to these...they are on my list...BJ
FYI- tuning to peak torque isnt the best idea....the simple reason NOT to is "IF" your rpm wavers or drops off of "peak torque" then theres LESS hp/tq to regain rpm (main problem with the 2007 800r)...clutch to peak HP (higher rpm) then "IF" you lose a little rpm...the motor falls back into MORE torque = kicks your rpm back up...plus at 9000' the 800r runs better at 8100-8200 vs 7900-8000
OT- thanks for the post...been to busy to get to these...they are on my list...BJ
FYI- tuning to peak torque isnt the best idea....the simple reason NOT to is "IF" your rpm wavers or drops off of "peak torque" then theres LESS hp/tq to regain rpm (main problem with the 2007 800r)...clutch to peak HP (higher rpm) then "IF" you lose a little rpm...the motor falls back into MORE torque = kicks your rpm back up...plus at 9000' the 800r runs better at 8100-8200 vs 7900-8000
I
Insaneboltrounder/sjohns
Well-known member
Full shift out.... there is no way anyone is getting full shift out during a climb. Unless you have geared down insanely low you will never get much past the 1:1 area of the shift , which is ideal. If you are anywhere near full shift you will have track speed of over 70 mph. Anyone getting 70 mph???? Didnt think so. sj
BJ, i would agree with you under normal riding conditions....However at 9000' the 800R no longer runs at the rated peak HP. The thin air alone at 9000' robs the 800R of 30% of the motors rated peak HP. Add in the extra rider weight and load of the deep deep snow and the 800R is running "No Where Near Peak HP". In the deep mountain snow "torque has alway ruled" and as mentioned already can the 800R go 70 mph through the deep mountain fluff ??. I also agree that some clutch setups "WAVER" in rpm. Part of tuning the TRA is finding the correct primary setup that does not WAVER the rpm. If your rpm happens to WAVER in the deep mountain snow your already fighting an uphill battle that will lead you to adjusting your clickers. Tuning the TRA has always been about stopping the rpm from wavering.
When the rpm wavers you've lost trackspeed.
OT
Does the altitude also change the peak HP and torque RPM?
constant rpm
I don't know, maybe we are saying the same thing and it is not coming across, but if you are not hearing your motor load(going over a mogul climbing) you are leaving alot on the table if you are always just at constant RPMs. When you're motor loads the clucthes should backshift quickly to get RPMs back. Probably what you meant and I am reading to much into this, but I was just helping a friend of a friend and he said he had constant RPMs but no track speed(he wasn't loading the motor with enough helix).
I don't know, maybe we are saying the same thing and it is not coming across, but if you are not hearing your motor load(going over a mogul climbing) you are leaving alot on the table if you are always just at constant RPMs. When you're motor loads the clucthes should backshift quickly to get RPMs back. Probably what you meant and I am reading to much into this, but I was just helping a friend of a friend and he said he had constant RPMs but no track speed(he wasn't loading the motor with enough helix).
I
Insaneboltrounder/sjohns
Well-known member
nope.... seeing i have numbnuts on permanent ignore i can only imagine the myths he is creating More track stand tuning by the master flatlander
More track stand tuning by the master flatlanderHave to agree with this. From the simple stand point that if you enter a corner on a motocross track holding the motor on peak torque, upon exit you will be promptly run over by the guy who came in with the motor overrevving. When he nails it coming off the turn his motor has fallen back to peak torque. And if anyone has a clutch setup that properly loads the motor and NEVER waivers under any load changes on a hill, I'm first in line to buy that sucker.
As for the leverage arm idea, it makes sense. Could solve the issue of my xp not wanting to shift over 80 percent while mountain riding. However, I do not expirience wildly fluctuating rpms now. So I dont see how it can improve that...??
