I think the chain length will only allow 19/42 won't it? That has worked really good for me.
I want to get some of you thinking a little bit here. Why are we running team secondary springs with such low finish rate? OK, well I'm not.
I was playing around with the team helix/ spring spreadsheet thingy. So I did a lot of variable changes with helix and springs.
Knowing the secondary has the most grip at engagement due to sheave angle and belt contact. It also has the least side pressure at full shift out. This could indicate an increase risk of slippage. Especially with the stock 160/240 spring.
The primary has the least pressure at engagement and the most at full shift out. This is again due to the angle of the sheave faces. We counter this with weights and helix, etc.
So from a belt side pressure stand point these are somewhat opposite each other. When the primary has the most pull, the secondary has the least grip and vise versa.
So, to create a scenario, If you are climbing and the track is getting good traction it is working against the secondary (torque converter) If the primary is still pulling hard it is going to over power what the track is doing and slip the belt. You loose track speed and then get stuck or something.
So, if I take the stock helix of 56/42-.36 it takes a 160/300 spring to equal the same side pressure at full shift as it has at engagement. With an obvious peak when the angles change.
I tried the 160 -300 spring on my edge TheFullMonte (maybe the Dragon could be different) And found the 300 pound finish rate held me back by 2 to 3 MPH track speed. Also noticed a lot more heat build up in the clutches. one or two pass wasn't bad but anymore then that and i had to stop and let it cool down.
I was using a 160/280 spring with the 58/42-.46 last season with really good results.
I'm starting to see why.
Play around with the team calculator a little bit and let me know what you are all thinking.