Why don't the OEM build sleds with tube frames?????

[couch]

Why are sleds different than bikes, quads, side x sides? Why the mish-mash of frame components in sleds - some use cast aluminium, bent aluminium, some extrusions, some carbon tubes, some steel, and so on? Don't see the same type of mixed materials on other rec products.

Seems to me that a properly designed tube frame is stronger and lighter than all the various bits & pieces all of the OEMs use. Why not a decent factory tube frame with SMC to cover the tunnel & engine bay?

Can't be any more expensive to wield up quad or side x side frame than a sled - price points are similar and lots of these machines get abused every bit as much as sleds!

The custom tube builds seem to back up the lighter & stronger argument ... cost for an OEM should be substantially lower given economy of scale and availability of automated tube formers and wielding robots.

Just wondering???????

 

[Sledbrain2]

Redline was a tube frame,

 

[diggerdown]

Somehow a tunnel built out of tubes seems just wrong!

 

[Goin For Snow]

Poo is 15% there with those rush sleds.

 

[Mafesto]

Poo is 15% there with those rush sleds.

People don't really ride those things in public, do they?

 

[couch]

Poo is 15% there with those rush sleds.

Copy of 1990 Yamaha Sno Scoot / Sport .... 100% tube frame with rear shock outside of skid - actually works very well even with OE basic shock.

This was actually the start for this post .... I have a couple of these for the kids and it seems that they were next to indestructible & still in decent shape after 20+ years in spite of lots of adult riding and general abuse / neglect from previous owners. The actual frame seems to be pretty strong and relatively light (not so much for some of the other pieces). If slightly re-engineered for full size riders, this would make a fun platform for fooling around on.
Front clip bolts on but only had single A arm setup - steering is very simple geometry with only one linkage - bell crank at end of steering shaft with tie rods to ski spindles - least amount of slop of all of our sleds! Four bolts to remove entire engine shroud.

Curious as to what an OEM constructed tube frame could / would weigh compared to current frames and custom tube frames.

 

[TurboM700]

People don't really ride those things in public, do they?

Yup wife has a 600 sled and I was amazed how well the ride down the trail along with how well they take big bumps.

Last yr Polaris had all there sled out at a snow-cross track by my house and you could do 5 laps on any sled they had there.

I first started out on a 800 assualt switch back 136 i belive it was. Nice sled very fun in the jumps and big mougles (sp).

My next sled was a 800 Pro Rush and man was I amazed handle the big jumps and landing were smooth. Unlike the 800 Assualt that I had to handle the mougles like there were small table tops the Pro Rush you could just pin it and fly right across it. I was truly amazed.

It took me a while to get over the looks still dont know if I'm over it yet but If all I did was trail riding around here (MN) my nytro would be sold tomorrow.

As for why the OEM dont use tube chassis there expensive to make when you can just cast a left and right chassis out of Alum.

 

[ullose272]

Why are sleds different than bikes, quads, side x sides? Why the mish-mash of frame components in sleds - some use cast aluminium, bent aluminium, some extrusions, some carbon tubes, some steel, and so on? Don't see the same type of mixed materials on other rec products.

Seems to me that a properly designed tube frame is stronger and lighter than all the various bits & pieces all of the OEMs use. Why not a decent factory tube frame with SMC to cover the tunnel & engine bay?

Can't be any more expensive to wield up quad or side x side frame than a sled - price points are similar and lots of these machines get abused every bit as much as sleds!

The custom tube builds seem to back up the lighter & stronger argument ... cost for an OEM should be substantially lower given economy of scale and availability of automated tube formers and wielding robots.

Just wondering???????

i can walk out and find steel, aluminum, Ti, plastic, rubber, all on my bike, as well as cast, forged, stamped peices, and its frame isnt tube

 

[LRD]

Actually a chrome moly steel tube frame is very old school. About 1930's for race cars, bird cage Maserati I think was one. Then came Monocoque aluminum, a stressed skin frame, then maybe Chaperell with fiberglass and then the full out evolution, Carbon Fibre.

A snowmobile tunnel, 2/3 is an aluminum Monocque stressed skin frame. The two cross shafts for the rear suspension complete it into a stressed skin, running boards also add strength. Tough to beat. Pick up a bare tunnel and nothing to them.

With a steel tube frame still have to skin it to enclose stuff.

Probably the strongest and lightest thing going is the Carbon fiber one piece
tunnel, front end and gas tank.

Good Luck

PS Been plugging away at light weight for over 30 years and my XP with a 15 x 141 X 2.25
only weighs 365 lbs dry. With a build using a C3 Carbon Fiber chassis could maybe get down in the 340's.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

because it takes a LOT more effort to build. a bent up tunnel/ front can be CNC cut and broken on 2 machines. cutting and notching the tubes, holding them and welding all the way around them is a GIANT pain in the butt. dirtbike frames do this but for the most part is like 10 tubes max.... the sled has so many more its stupid.

BUT, it is strong and light for sure!! chromoly frame with carbon liner = LIGHT!!!!

 

[TimG]

I'm a dirt biker, and I've been asking this question since the 90's. Had some good arguments about it, too. It seems as though sled design will inevitably go that way in the long run, but it hasn't happened yet. I remember thinking when I started riding sleds in the late 90's that they were about equivalent to late 70's motocross bikes. Sleds have come a long ways since then- powervalved engines, tube frames in the engine compartment, long travel suspension, rider forward chassis (why couldn't this have happened 30 years ago?), but the sheet aluminum sticks around, year after year. It's pretty pathetic- how many sleds have mangled, twisted, tweaked tunnels? A lot. How many motocross bikes have a bent frame? Virtually none. MX bikes are pretty near indestructible.

And then there's the question of efficiency of power transmission. A tube frame builder told me once that when a tunnel twists 0.030", you lose 30% of the power to the driveshaft. I don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, it's horrible. Would anybody who's ridden a tube chassis care to comment?

It's nearing the point of ridiculousness with the Rush. Rigid tube frame/ cast bulkhead up front, rigid tube frame in the back, and '70s cookie sheet material in the middle. Just make the whole thing a tube frame and get it over with already!

Cost would be a downside. A sled built like a motocross bike would for sure have to cost $ 17,000. But the less flex, the better the suspension would work and the more precise the handling would be. Maybe they'll end up with a suspension and tunnel that are one unit. But that's what makes sleds so exciting- there's lots of change going on. In a way, it's the golden age for sleds the way the late 70's was for MX bikes. These days, bikes are so refined that they change very little year to year. Sleds will reach this point someday, too, and then the sport will have lost a bit of it's appeal.

 

[PJ-Hunter]

People don't really ride those things in public, do they?

Flatlanders will ride anything.



The answer is that it's cheap. They can use the same frame parts across the board for nearly all sleds that a manufacturer builds.

A tube frame requires personal attention to every tube, tig welds that must go all of the way around. You can't really mass produce a tube frame in a timely and efficient manner. Why do you think those companies that build them (C3 and Diamond S for example) charge an obscene amount for them?

 

[couch]

Flatlanders will ride anything.
A tube frame requires personal attention to every tube, tig welds that must go all of the way around. You can't really mass produce a tube frame in a timely and efficient manner. Why do you think those companies that build them (C3 and Diamond S for example) charge an obscene amount for them?

Don't buy that ... with the level of automation in large scale manufacturing wielding is primarily by robots and the capability of automated production is ever increasing. Scale & economics for custom / limited builder is very different hence the high cost ... same for practically any custom / limited build item from autos, boats, etc.

If production cost for tube frame is the issue then the Rush would / should be among the most expensive factory sleds.

Yes, bent aluminum is undoubtedly cheap but look back to earlier sleds ... progressed from stamped steel frame up front with aluminum tunnel to most sleds now using tube front + cast or formed bulkheads + aluminum tunnel + tube component suspensions.

Personally I could see a well engineered (strong / rigid) tube frame with smc (thermoformed plastic) shrouds being a huge improvement. I can remove 4 bolts to remove the full engine shroud on the 1990 Sno Sports - try that with most of the new sleds!

Frame could either be a full single piece frame or interchangeable modular design - i.e. front end could be swapped for trail versus X racing / versus mountain. Same for tunnel & track - shorty versus mountain versus trail. This would also facilitate repairable sections (parts) which is a big part of the equation .... come to think of it maybe thats why there are sooooo many components used ... wonder what the revenue breakdown in parts & service versus new product sales is?

 

[PJ-Hunter]

Don't buy that ... with the level of automation in large scale manufacturing wielding is primarily by robots and the capability of automated production is ever increasing. Scale & economics for custom / limited builder is very different hence the high cost ... same for practically any custom / limited build item from autos, boats, etc.

If production cost for tube frame is the issue then the Rush would / should be among the most expensive factory sleds.

Yes, bent aluminum is undoubtedly cheap but look back to earlier sleds ... progressed from stamped steel frame up front with aluminum tunnel to most sleds now using tube front + cast or formed bulkheads + aluminum tunnel + tube component suspensions.

Personally I could see a well engineered (strong / rigid) tube frame with smc (thermoformed plastic) shrouds being a huge improvement. I can remove 4 bolts to remove the full engine shroud on the 1990 Sno Sports - try that with most of the new sleds!

Frame could either be a full single piece frame or interchangeable modular design - i.e. front end could be swapped for trail versus X racing / versus mountain. Same for tunnel & track - shorty versus mountain versus trail. This would also facilitate repairable sections (parts) which is a big part of the equation .... come to think of it maybe thats why there are sooooo many components used ... wonder what the revenue breakdown in parts & service versus new product sales is?

The Rush isn't a big seller. Can you imagine the type and scale it would take to design and build an assembly line that would be capable of mass producing tubular frames. As a man that works in a heavy indistrial field I know that would cost them millions to design and build. The equipment would be insanely costly. Who do you think would pay for that? You would, I would. Sleds are already ridiculously priced as it is. $13k for a stock sled. Throw a tube frame in for a mass produced sled and your cost would jump 5000 bucks, at least. The scale of something like would be huge! Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but I'd rather keep consumer costs down and stay with what they currently use. It's not bad.

Look at the street bikes that have tubular frames. Most of the high end Italian bikes. Ducati, for example. Compare that with a Honda CBR. Both very good bikes, very fast and reliable. But the Ducati will be 30-50% more expensive than the CBR with the pieced together frame.

 

[Woodsrider]

I am sure it money verse the number of units that can be sold. If enough market is there they will build them and we buy them.

 

[Goin For Snow]

Was at the arctic cat factory and watched the robot make tunnels. fast is an understatement. The alum tunnel is cheap, effective and fast to make.

 

[couch]

The Rush isn't a big seller. Can you imagine the type and scale it would take to design and build an assembly line that would be capable of mass producing tubular frames. As a man that works in a heavy indistrial field I know that would cost them millions to design and build. The equipment would be insanely costly. Who do you think would pay for that? You would, I would. Sleds are already ridiculously priced as it is. $13k for a stock sled. Throw a tube frame in for a mass produced sled and your cost would jump 5000 bucks, at least. The scale of something like would be huge! Not saying it wouldn't be nice, but I'd rather keep consumer costs down and stay with what they currently use. It's not bad.

Look at the street bikes that have tubular frames. Most of the high end Italian bikes. Ducati, for example. Compare that with a Honda CBR. Both very good bikes, very fast and reliable. But the Ducati will be 30-50% more expensive than the CBR with the pieced together frame.

Whether Rush is a big seller or not is immaterial - its still in the line up, its not marketed at the highest price point, and most importantly it is obviously "mass produced" like all of the other OEM products. Rear end is tube + front end is tube so why not the mid sections - bet it wouldn't add $5000 to the production cost! Quads & side X sides are also mass produced - lots of formed tube and automated wielding on those as well - still bet the sale of quads & side X sides exceeds number of sleds sold and comparatively speaking their retail is about the same as sleds.

We're still speaking about ferrous tubing with numerically controlled tube forming and wielding units - not advanced composites / carbon different beast and not as easily automated which would drive $ up considerably.

 

[IDspud]

Could be they have as many broken a-arms (tube steel) hanging around as I do. Once you kink a tube frame it's pretty tough to bend it back and have any strength. Replaceable pieces that give where needed has been a good thing when things don't go as planned. Much harder to accomplish with a tube frame.

 

[couch]

Was looking for this video of automated tube bending machine - would eliminate huge amount of cutting & shaping to produce a tube frame. Other big upside would be the use of curved shapes which are inherently stronger.....

Do the OEMS use anything like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZhGHALB4_hQ