TRS Clutching [ PART FOUR ]

[bryceraisanen]

Sorry for editing this but just out of curiosity whos method did you use to do the clutch alignment with?
The glazing is more predominate in the top picture then the bottom one but there is what looks like more belt wear on that side then the bottom picture.
So just to be clear the top belt picture is the side that rest against the fixed primary sheave and the bottom pic is the side that's against the movable side of the primary sheave.
If it is then the secondary is still out of alignment somewhat. It needs to be shimmed out a little more from the jackshaft bearing according to the witness marks on the belt.. I would try adding very thin spacers .010-.020 thousand of an inch at a time to see if those witness marks get closer to the same. you want them to be the same on both side. Also if you ran this belt like this for 600 miles it might be hard to get a accurate witness mark reading due to belt wear in this position for 600 miles. i would start off with a new belt now to get a more accurate picture of where you new spacing witness marks will be. the old belt will throw this off somewhat now. There's nothing wrong with it keeping it as a spare if you want. According to what your marks are showing you could be gaining some more in performance with a closer alignment.

Used TRS method with his bar. Could never get it perfect because of Axys motor mount design, so just set the gap at front of driven to .005" and let er rip.

Ok.

Yes.

I agree on the out of alignment (lead in). But I have screwed with my motor mounts multiple times now, and I can't get it straight enough with the way Poo bolted it in the chassis. Using the TRS bar, I'm just touching at front edge of driven, and .065" gap at the rear. Would prefer to have .030" gap at the rear. I disagree though on which direction to move it. Going off memory, I think I need to move the driven clutch inward if the witness marks are smaller/lower on the inside of the belt....? Considering I'm running turbo, it stands to reason that the motor would torque more than an NA sled; so much that I maybe need a tad bit of inward float...?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

 

[briand]

Another thing Would you by any chance have a torque arm limiter installed on the motor? this can limit how far the motor needs to flex into parallel position to lineup the clutches.

​

 

[briand]

Used TRS method with his bar. Could never get it perfect because of Axys motor mount design, so just set the gap at front of driven to .005" and let er rip.

Ok.

Yes.

I agree on the out of alignment (lead in). But I have screwed with my motor mounts multiple times now, and I can't get it straight enough with the way Poo bolted it in the chassis. Using the TRS bar, I'm just touching at front edge of driven, and .065" gap at the rear. Would prefer to have .030" gap at the rear. I disagree though on which direction to move it. Going off memory, I think I need to move the driven clutch inward if the witness marks are smaller/lower on the inside of the belt....? Considering I'm running turbo, it stands to reason that the motor would torque more than an NA sled; so much that I maybe need a tad bit of inward float...?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

OK great. I too also have a turbo on a 2012 pro. I have played around with my motor mounts and the best i could get my pro leadin was around .080. When i did my alignment Tony didn't have his bar out at that time and i used his keystock method to start with then fine tuned with the witness marks. I know Tony has a method to get this offset a lot lower on the pro but i have never done this as my belt witness marks are pretty much identical. Its a few years back when i did my alignment but i could have sworn that i needed to ad a thin shim when i did the first initial alignment as the witness marks were lower on the fixed side then the movable side.
Anyways your out nothing to try it both ways. Add shims or remove shims and go by the witness marks

 

[bryceraisanen]

OK great. I too also have a turbo on a 2012 pro. I have played around with my motor mounts and the best i could get my pro leadin was around .080. When i did my alignment Tony didn't have his bar out at that time and i used his keystock method to start with then fine tuned with the witness marks. I know Tony has a method to get this offset a lot lower on the pro but i have never done this as my belt witness marks are pretty much identical. Its a few years back when i did my alignment but i could have sworn that i needed to ad a thin shim when i did the first initial alignment as the witness marks were lower on the fixed side then the movable side.
Anyways your out nothing to try it both ways. Add shims or remove shims and go by the witness marks

Just the factory torque arm.

Yeah I initially added roughly .130" behind the driven clutch couple years ago. I just have some time on my hands, and was bound and determined to get the lead in within spec.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

 

[bryceraisanen]

Well after the better part of two days messing with it, I think I determined that the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

I tried loosening/tightening motor mounts in different sequences. Rotated the mount bushings several times, and dremeled out the holes for the underneath front mag motor mount. Used a ratchet strap and pry bar to try move the mag side of the motor forward. All said and done I was able to get lead in to .030", depending on how I orientated the driven clutch.

Throughout the process, I realized that the driven clutch varies in total width (out to out of the sheaves) by as much as .025". So if I spin the thick part of it forward and set it to touch the alignment bar, I wind up with a big (.060") gap at the rear of the driven. If I put the skinny part of the driven clutch forward, then my gap at the back is prefect at .030".

Question now is if my motor mounts will stay where I have them... from here on out, I think I'll just go by the belt witness marks once I know I'm close.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

 

[DKP]

The 47C4572 is roughly .190” longer. It’s a tad wider but will wear down fairly quick.
Many of the AXYS chassis, 800 or 850, has a center to center of 11.6”+not the 11.5” as advertised or spec’d. 11.6” calls for a longer belt if you want to get proper initial low end gearing and full shift out in the secondary. If the belts to short you will bottom in the secondary and the primary will try and will tear the belt apart. Now I know we don’t get that shift out on the hill, but your 1:1 ratio and anywhere else along the shift cycle isn’t correct either. Think about a multi angle or progressive helix. What angle is it running at?
I’ve been experimenting with chamfering the top cooling cogs down to the cord line on the stock Polaris and Gates belts. It has definitely changed where the primary is gripping the belt for the better. It now grips below the cord line instead of gripping the cord line along with the cooling cogs. Not much meat to the belt above the cord line.
Looking back at old belts in the shop, I’m replicating or advancing the angle.
It’s a simple task and can be done on a drill press, I use the mill. It may be something my fellow Snowesters can try. At $200 for a stock belt, why not see if it prolongs life.

View attachment 300585 View attachment 300586

Tony, Are you still recommending this for the 47C4572 belt? I assume there is no negatives in doing so

 

[TRS]

I still recommend it.