Some 2013 info to wet the tongue..

[JSun]

Completely Agree!!!

What seems to be only touched on is that the belt drive is more efficeint. More hp to the track whether it be added hp or more efficeincy gives one the same result. If you could get 100%, impossible really, of the 140 +/- hp to the track at all time the machine would plain rip your arms off and beat you with them! Anybody else up for a good beating?

There is a BIG difference between taking 15lbs of stationary mass off a sled and 15lbs of ROTATING mass. If this is true this will be huge for the way this machine feel on the snow.

Think about it - No chain, no heavy sprokets, no chaincase, no chaincase oil... Did I forget anything!?!?!?

Really cool if it's true.

Joe

 

[SLDHVN]

anyone that saw the CMX chassis at the Puyallup snow show knows how easy it was to turn the belt drive, yes the chain case works well, but the belt drive will put more power down, more efficiently, with less weight.

 

[Scott]

This belt drive talk is making me excited.


I know how I like my RMI gear drive. The CMX belt drive is right there with it.

What's nice is knowing the brake rotor of the gear or belt drive is on the drive shaft and NOT on the jackshaft when something goes haywire in that chaincase.

 

[High Velocity]

Another 2011 for sale. Only mine is cheaper and better than his ^^^

Add a '12 that may be for sale as well. Man, is my wife gonna be pissed !


Sent from my iPhone when I should be sledding.

 

[aebsledder]

reservations

Maybe I am just being cautious...But would anyone else have some serious reservations about getting a sled with a brand new drive system in it? (If it is indeed true) Don't get me wrong, I think the pro is a great sled, but I would probably feel a little better about one that had a solid year of consumer use under it's belt. Pardon the pun. I know CMX does them, but that is basically a hand built 30,000 dollar snowmobile. I think I remember a thread a while back asking about the belt drive and there were a few people who chimed in and said they didn't really think they got the most bang for their buck when they got the kit from cmx. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens next year. I think even little tweaks to this chassis can only make it better.

 

[gmustangt]

New track with a 2.5... how dated is the 5.1

 

[pura vida]

cory. the other brands have us by 15-20 hp on the dyno now.....yet the lighter sled still performs....taking another 15-20 pds...is going to outperform 10 hp....at least on this light of a chassis to begin with....

i still have to disagree. one, i think we all know the pro isn't actually down 15-20 hp. if it is down on hp at all my guess would be 5-10 hp at the most. plus percentage wise, just going with the rumor, 7 hp would be a 4.6% increase (7hp/150hp) and 15lbs loss would be a 3.5% decrees (15/430). or 2.74lbs/hp w/the 7hp vs. 2.77lbs/hp w/ the 15lbs loss. (with both it comes out to 2.64lbs/hp) its not just the weight of the sled the makes it work so well, it has more to do with the complete package. the numbers above are actually pretty insignificant. i'd rather have the hp. but i'll take both... actually i'd rather have carl's 900...

pv

 

[veritascs]

This makes me think that Doo is coming out with a show stopper. Otherwise, why would Poo be dropping MORE weight? They already have the lighest sled, so why drop more UNLESS there was something else coming out to take away sales....


Ace

So when you are a leader you don't want to stay a leader?

 

[WingNutRacing]

on top?

Maybe they will buy out AC and make CatPoo???

 

[SLDHVN]

Maybe I am just being cautious...But would anyone else have some serious reservations about getting a sled with a brand new drive system in it? (If it is indeed true) Don't get me wrong, I think the pro is a great sled, but I would probably feel a little better about one that had a solid year of consumer use under it's belt. Pardon the pun. I know CMX does them, but that is basically a hand built 30,000 dollar snowmobile. I think I remember a thread a while back asking about the belt drive and there were a few people who chimed in and said they didn't really think they got the most bang for their buck when they got the kit from cmx. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens next year. I think even little tweaks to this chassis can only make it better.

i agree, it will be interesting to see how it works out.
Polaris can not afford to screw it up after all the dragon BS.

I will keep the 2012 until the 13's have some seat time and prove to be durable.

In my eyes, adding a belt drive to a sled may be part of the reason people feel it didnt work as well as it should have. just like anything else people mod, who did the install, maintinence, etc? that could make the performance vary greatly.

A sled built with the belt drive could really shine, since it was designed to run the belt drive that should take most of the variables out of the equation i would think.

my .02, either way it will be good im sure

 

[WingNutRacing]

hmm

I'm not a big fan of "first year" anything really.

But,,,, as of now, the 12 155 Pro will be traded for a 13 163 Pro.

 

[Scott]

70% of the people who buy Assaults will ditch the competition track. Especially those guys in the mtns.

I know the RMSHA guys like the Assaults for the competition track, and that's one reason it's offered that way so they can have a good stiff track for competition and stay in the stock class.

BUT .....
I'd like to see Polaris offer a real honest "choice" of track on the Assault without having to BUY AND SELL tracks just to get the track they want. I can see charging 1 or 2 hundy to upgrade...but to SELL the comp and BUY the powder track...that sucks.

This would help the competition tracks keep a little better value in the used market. Right now, the competition tracks are for sale all over the place and you can't hardly give them away.

 

[WingNutRacing]

hmm

Wasn't there an option for either track, IF you Snowchecked an Assault last year?

 

[SLDHVN]

for 2012 sled you had the option of what track, seat, and side panels you got on the assault and pro

 

[aebsledder]

New track with a 2.5... how dated is the 5.1

Slightly off topic...but I see this all the time. Why? I have ridden with guys with the 2.5 on the days we live for in SW MT. 12-18 inches of dry, fluffy, downhill over the hood ecstasy. I thought the 5.1 was actually better. The 2.5 seemed to trench way more in those conditions. Must be a regional thing.

 

[mountainhorse]

The 5.1 does do better in the dry pow than the Ch Ext 2.5 ... that was what it was designed... everything else...the Ch Ext outperforms it.

 

[WingNutRacing]

hmm

On the Camo Ext 2.5 compared to the 5.1 stock track. We got exactly the opposite results.

The 2.5 just seemed to work better in all conditions.... even the bottomless fluff

comparison was done on two identically clutched 12 163 PRO's.


The 5.1 isn't really a bad track, it works very well, but the 2.5 Camo seems to just work a little better...

my .02

 

[Scott]

Would be awesome if my finger track was a 2.5" instead of 2.25"...and if it was in a 3.0 pitch with 20lbs taken off. HAHA

 

[Demo250]

I'll third the 5.1 working better than the 2.5 Camo in the deep, dry fluff. That's it though, anything else the edge goes to the Camo.

 

[allblowdup]

Is a belt more efficient at transfering power?? Or just less rotating weight?
Chain/case is what, like over 98% efficient, so not a heck of a lot left there besides the weight loss and simplicity.

I would like to see some gains/redesigns in the power lost through the CVT....now there's an area leaving A LOT on the table for improvement!

Did a test a few years ago on a 700 rmk engine ran a bulkhead I had laying around. We mounted the dyno to a drive shaft that I modified and ran the stock 700 engine with the clutches locked at 1:1 ratio and first through a chaincase and next through a gates polychain gt belt syetm that I designed. The engine by itself on the dyno made 115 hp (nice and rich to keep repetability). The chaincase made 102 hp and the belt system made 105 ( approx 3% gain). The belt was only 1 1/2 wide on that one. I ran it for part of the season but there was breaking issues that really were not the belts falt so I went back to the chain.