WALKER EVANS 'NEEDLE' SHOCKS NOT AVAILABLE ON SNOWCHECKED 2019 PRO RMK'S

[mountainhorse]

I just got this info from Polaris corporate...

The shocks options on the 2019 Pro RMK packages during snowcheck are

1) Monotube shocks
2) Compression adjustable 'piggyback clicker' shocks with the 1/2" shafts.

The Comp Adj. Piggyback Clicker NEEDLE shocks are NOT an option on any of the ProRMK sleds. (only the assault, which is not offered with the 840 engine).

If you have ordered your snowcheck with the upgraded "Clicker" option... you will get the NON-needle shocks with 1/2" shafts.... regardless of what your paperwork says...

If you want to change your mind based on this and go with the monotube shocks.... your dealer should be able to modify your SC contract and decrease, on your contract, the 'total due' amount for next fall by moving you back to the mono-tube.

Talk to your dealer if you have issues.









.

 

[Scott]

Hmmm.

 

[greasemonkey3406]

Thanks for checking into this MH. Makes my decision a little easier now.

 

[05900]

Talk to your dealer if you have issues.
.

He suggested Sledaholics Anonymous

 

[FatDogX]

So.......with that said,

I'm better off pulling my K-Mod front end and Raptors from my 17 and putting everything on a the new 19 and ordering the standard mono tube shocks to save a little.

I was hoping to order an actual "upgraded" shock and leave the new stock front end on.

 

[mountainhorse]

I think you were better off that way anyways... those raptors are super high end shocks... and the K-mod stuff, well... hard to go wrong there.

So.......with that said,

I'm better off pulling my K-Mod front end and Raptors from my 17 and putting everything on a the new 19 and ordering the standard mono tube shocks to save a little.

I was hoping to order an actual "upgraded" shock and leave the new stock front end on.

 

[greasemonkey3406]

I think I may end up going with the raptors myself. Have heard nothing but good things about them and the price seems to be right for a set of 4. Plus I can get them with the blue anodized bodies that would match everything else.

 

[06redrevx]

Pretty deceptive of Polaris to specifically advertise "needle" shocks and get everyone hyped and then supply the same old crappy piggybacks.
This makes my decision much tougher on shocks.
Does anyone think the standard piggybacks are much better than the monos?

 

[revrider07]

I agree pretty SHADY of Polaris to do this. I'm also concerned about them getting the snowchecks out on time seems to be lots more being sold than dealer allotments. I'm going to see if I can get my dealer to guarantee delivery by November of 2018 in writing.

 

[mountainhorse]

IMO.

The 1/2" shafts just don't move that much oil past the clickers to make them that responsive to adjustment... and that the monotubes in this case can be valved to give the same performance with less weight.

Just my 2¢



.

 

[Dazzler]

So.......with that said,

I'm better off pulling my K-Mod front end and Raptors from my 17 and putting everything on a the new 19 and ordering the standard mono tube shocks to save a little.

I was hoping to order an actual "upgraded" shock and leave the new stock front end on.

I think you were better off that way anyways... those raptors are super high end shocks... and the K-mod stuff, well... hard to go wrong there.

Mountainhorse, I believe you mentioned that the 2019 front shocks are a little shorter than the previous Axy?

 

[mountainhorse]

Mountainhorse, I believe you mentioned that the 2019 front shocks are a little shorter than the previous Axy?

I did indeed.

But in FDX's case...He's transferring over the complete set arms/shocks/tierods.... so all is good. Bulkhead is the same as all AXYS before.




.

 

[LoudHandle]

I'm calling BS MH!

IMO.

The 1/2" shafts just don't move that much oil past the clickers to make them that responsive to adjustment..........................

I'm just going to be the azzhole here and disagree with your logic. Volumetrically the Large 5/8" shaft shock moves less oil thru the valve stack and thus the clicker adjustment than the 1/2" shaft shock per inch of travel.

I assume/d both shocks have the same bore size (for the sake of the math I used 1 1/2" diameter, but as long as the bore is the same the numbers represent well anyways).

With that assumption made;
The 5/8" shaft shock will displace 1.018 Cubic Inches per inch of travel. While
the 1/2" shaft shock will displace 1.128 Cubic Inches per Inch of travel.



I don't run any of the "Stock shocks" so it's a moot point for me. I also won't run any of the pogo sticks (air shocks) regardless of brand or how many bandaided canisters and valving they offer.

But I guess this is also a moot point as the 5/8" shafted needle shocks aren't on the table anyways.

 

[mountainhorse]

I'm just going to be the azzhole here and disagree with your logic. Volumetrically the Large 5/8" shaft shock moves less oil thru the valve stack and thus the clicker adjustment than the 1/2" shaft shock per inch of travel.

I assume/d both shocks have the same bore size (for the sake of the math I used 1 1/2" diameter, but as long as the bore is the same the numbers represent well anyways).

With that assumption made;
The 5/8" shaft shock will displace 1.018 Cubic Inches per inch of travel. While
the 1/2" shaft shock will displace 1.128 Cubic Inches per Inch of travel.



I don't run any of the "Stock shocks" so it's a moot point for me. I also won't run any of the pogo sticks (air shocks) regardless of brand or how many bandaided canisters and valving they offer.

But I guess this is also a moot point as the 5/8" shafted needle shocks aren't on the table anyways.

I really dig the discussion... and don't think your an a-hole.

1) Oil moves through the piston...The piston itself is not displacing oil. [if the shock is working/designed correctly and not cavitating]

2) The volume of oil is fixed in the shock.

3) The IFP (Internal Floating Piston), whether in the resi or end of the shock body itself, is moved by the amount of oil that is displaced by the shaft. The purpose of the IFP is to allow for the amount of oil displaced by the shaft taking up volume as it enters the shock. This is true for both mono-tube-IFP and Reservoir-Equipped-IFP shocks.


As a 5/8" shafts enters the shock... It displaces more oil than the 1/2" shaft... just plain physics (the shaft is larger)

For the 5/8" shaft... It will displace a volume of approx .31 cubic inches of fluid for each inch of compression travel.

For the 1/2" shaft... It will displace a volume of approx .20 cubic inches of fluid for each inch of compression travel.

The oil that is displaced by the shaft, in a piggyback reservoir equipped shock, is the oil that moves past the clicker needle valve or clicker valve stack (depending on the sophistication of the compression adjuster).

The adjustment and control of the oil flow to/from the face of the IFP works in concert with the existing valve stack mounted to the main piston.

Less oil moving past the 'clicker' .. the less resolution you have over the control of that fluid.

... and the converse of this is also true.

More oil moving past the 'clicker' .. the more resolution you have in control of that fluid.

IMO... a small shaft piggyback shock is kind of an just a "flash feature" that does not add much control.... You will see none of the aftermarket sled shocks with compression adjustable piggyback shocks with a 1/2" shaft.

Plain and simple... larger shaft shocks move their IFP more than smaller shaft shocks.

For a 5/8" Shaft

For a 1/2" Shaft

.

 

[LoudHandle]

I really dig the discussion... and don't think your an a-hole.

1) Oil moves through the piston...The piston itself is not displacing oil. [if the shock is working/designed correctly and you are not cavitating]

2) The volume of oil is fixed in the shock.

3) The IFP, whether in the resi or end of the shock body itself, is moved by the amount of oil that is displaced by the shaft. The purpose of the IFP is to allow for the amount of oil displaced by the shaft taking up volume as it enters the shock.


As a 5/8" shafts enters the shock... It displaces more oil than the 1/2" shaft... just plain physics (the shaft is larger)

For the 5/8" shaft... It will displace a volume of approx .31 cubic inches of fluid for each inch of compression travel.

For the 1/2" shaft... It will displace a volume of approx .20 cubic inches of fluid for each inch of compression travel.

The oil that is displaced by the shaft, in a piggyback reservoir equipped shock, is the oil that moves past the clicker needle valve or clicker valve stack (depending on the sophistication of the compression adjuster).

The adjustment and control of the oil flow to/from the face of the IFP works in concert with the existing valve stack mounted to the main piston.

Less oil moving past the 'clicker' .. the less resolution you have over the control of that fluid.

... and the converse of this is also true.

More oil moving past the 'clicker' .. the more resolution you have in control of that fluid.

IMO... a small shaft piggyback shock is kind of an just a "flash feature" that does not add much control.... You will see none of the aftermarket sled shocks with compression adjustable piggyback shocks with a 1/2" shaft.

Plain and simple... larger shaft shocks move their IFP more than smaller shaft shocks.

For a 5/8" Shaft

For a 1/2" Shaft

.

You're correct, I was thinking open system (spend too much time troubleshooting Hydraulics) rather than closed. So yes in a fixed volume arrangement the only difference being the rod size. The larger rod will move the IFP more resulting in more flow past the clicker (and a higher nitrogen pressure as well as the shock is compressed) than the smaller rod shock.

Carry on!

 

[mountainhorse]

I've done the same thing my friend !




.

 

[Teth-Air]

IMO.

The 1/2" shafts just don't move that much oil past the clickers to make them that responsive to adjustment... and that the monotubes in this case can be valved to give the same performance with less weight.

Just my 2¢

.

I have had the standard and the piggy back shocks on several RMK's. Definitely the piggy backs are a huge advantage. Sure they are not needles but are easily adjusted from trail to deep snow. On the rough trail it is nice to dial 2 clicks softer and when in deep, 2 clicks harder to make the chassis act more rigid. Also 1 or 2 clicks harder on the clutch side, especially if there is a light can on the opposite side. This makes the sled feel more balanced on the bumps due to unequal ski weight. If you are not going to bother adjusting for conditions then don't pay extra for the option.

Another nice thing is the anodized threads turn much easier and don't strip like the bare aluminum version.

 

[10003514]

I have had the standard and the piggy back shocks on several RMK's. Definitely the piggy backs are a huge advantage. Sure they are not needles but are easily adjusted from trail to deep snow. On the rough trail it is nice to dial 2 clicks softer and when in deep, 2 clicks harder to make the chassis act more rigid. Also 1 or 2 clicks harder on the clutch side, especially if there is a light can on the opposite side. This makes the sled feel more balanced on the bumps due to unequal ski weight. If you are not going to bother adjusting for conditions then don't pay extra for the option.

Another nice thing is the anodized threads turn much easier and don't strip like the bare aluminum version.

Good to know, ordered mine with clickers. I still think the $500 upgrade is decent price for the advantages over the monotubes.

 

[sledhead9825]

I agree pretty SHADY of Polaris to do this. I'm also concerned about them getting the snowchecks out on time seems to be lots more being sold than dealer allotments. I'm going to see if I can get my dealer to guarantee delivery by November of 2018 in writing.

Good luck with that. The dealers not building it.

 

[Scott]

I agree pretty SHADY of Polaris to do this. I'm also concerned about them getting the snowchecks out on time seems to be lots more being sold than dealer allotments. I'm going to see if I can get my dealer to guarantee delivery by November of 2018 in writing.

Awfully difficult for the dealer to control when the truck shows up.