Hardcore Sledder banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I purchased a OEM 136 extension kit from Polaris and installed it two years ago. This is the second season. My stock suspension was a 121 Edge rear with Fox PS shock. 136 ripsaw 1 1/4" track with 150+ studs, 1 1/2", down the center. The suspension has front limiter straps only with just a series of holes. The problem I'm having is the extreme weight transfer of suspension under power. I am fairly big and as I'm riding I can't keep the skis on the snow, which is great for drag racers but not real good for river running and trail riding. The ride and the traction is awesome and well worth the money spent, but I have to be able to get this sled to handle. I have not found any information on the adjustments on these limiter straps. Has anybody done this conversion, and if so, did they notice the extreme ski lift? Suggestions or experience would be helpful. P.S. This machine has C&A Pro skis with 9" carbides. I don't necessarily see a push. It does turn in the corners, but you cannot turn under power. You have to let off, and this plays hell with headlight adjustments in the dark. I can give you more information if you have any more questions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
I know on the prox polaris 136 rails you move the rear torque arm back 2''. So you have to drill the tunnel holes out back 2''.

Is this true for the edge 136 rails?, or did the rear arm mount in stock locations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I know on the prox polaris 136 rails you move the rear torque arm back 2''. So you have to drill the tunnel holes out back 2''.

Is this true for the edge 136 rails?, or did the rear arm mount in stock locations?[/b]
In this kit it came with step-by-step Polaris shop instructions and didn't say anything, and it did mount in the original stock locations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
On the edge rear torque arm hole is move back 3/4-1inch. But check your rear torque where it bolts to the rail there is 3 holes forward hole is more transfer+lighter guy rear hole less transfer+heavier guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
On the edge rear torque arm hole is move back 3/4-1inch. But check your rear torque where it bolts to the rail there is 3 holes forward hole is more transfer+lighter guy rear hole less transfer+heavier guy.[/b]
The rear torque arm is mounted in the middle hole as was the 121 set up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
What springs are in it? Where are they set?
Where do you have the rear sisssors stops set?
Are you bottoming or are you happy with the the rear springs?
What rear shock?

2 things going against you so far are.

The ripsaw bites real good, better then a poo shockwave on hardpacked.

150+, 1.5'' studs is not helping either. A 136 rip with 108 1.325 studs work well for the agressive trail rider. My buddy ran a lot of 1.5'' studs on his sled and didn't like it just for the same reasons you are having.

How much do you weigh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
What springs are in it? Where are they set?
Where do you have the rear sisssors stops set?
Are you bottoming or are you happy with the the rear springs?
What rear shock?

2 things going against you so far are.

The ripsaw bites real good, better then a poo shockwave on hardpacked.

150+, 1.5'' studs is not helping either. A 136 rip with 108 1.325 studs work well for the agressive trail rider. My buddy ran a lot of 1.5'' studs on his sled and didn't like it just for the same reasons you are having.

How much do you weigh?[/b]
Under further investigation the studs ars 1.4" long and I used 3 across each lug not sure how many that comes out to, the shock is fox PS 2, stock 180# springs in and load adjusters are in the tallest potion, no bottoming out in this position. the scissors blocks are in the bottom set of holes and are set max forward min back. I'm a 230#er
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
Under further investigation the studs ars 1.4" long and I used 3 across each lug not sure how many that comes out to, the shock is fox PS 2, stock 180# springs in and load adjusters are in the tallest potion, no bottoming out in this position. the scissors blocks are in the bottom set of holes and are set max forward min back. I'm a 230#er[/b]
180 lb springs? I meant the rear springs, but I see your using the stock 121 springs, they would be .375

The other problem I can see is a pps shock. 1/2 the travel of a pps has no dampning at all, this is bassically in the region of 90% of most riding, right in the middle of the shocks travel. It just collapes
That would be 162 studs.

Hears my setup.
136 track 1.25
108 1.325 studs,,,,, take some of yours out.
Rear sissor stop in forward most hole, on high position,,,, wich I beleave you are set at.
Fox clicker shock, non pps
.405 springs.
slp slt skis, 9'' bar

If I were you I'd take 48 studs out.

Get a set of .405, put them on the lowest setting. Your ride quality may even improve as you won't be sitting on the blocks all the time.

What do you have now 3+ inches of set in when you sit on sled? Bet your rear sissors are touching the block just sitting on it.

Worry about a real shock after these mods, the .405 may fix it.

(Theres a thing with me and a pps shock, if you have bypass holes in a shock to eliminate dampning its not a shock then, so pps is not a real shock to me.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
I forgot to add.

Limiter straps are as long as possibe, not sucked in at all.
Front rail spring is stock, 7'' preload height with shock out of skid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
like al said,the clicker shock is awesum.i moved my spring mount rollers on the rail back 1 hole and put on a clicker .i was able to back the adjusters on the torque arm all the way off to low and im down to #3 setting on the shock.i then turned the rear scissors blocks to the thin setting.we road the moguls and mud monday foe 115 miles and i never bottomed.i weigh 270lbs.my front skid shock is set low also so the skid doesnt teeter toter on it.hth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
180 lb springs? I meant the rear springs, but I see your using the stock 121 springs, they would be .375

The other problem I can see is a pps shock. 1/2 the travel of a pps has no dampning at all, this is bassically in the region of 90% of most riding, right in the middle of the shocks travel. It just collapes
That would be 162 studs.

Hears my setup.
136 track 1.25
108 1.325 studs,,,,, take some of yours out.
Rear sissor stop in forward most hole, on high position,,,, wich I beleave you are set at.
Fox clicker shock, non pps
.405 springs.
slp slt skis, 9'' bar

If I were you I'd take 48 studs out.

Get a set of .405, put them on the lowest setting. Your ride quality may even improve as you won't be sitting on the blocks all the time.

What do you have now 3+ inches of set in when you sit on sled? Bet your rear sissors are touching the block just sitting on it.

Worry about a real shock after these mods, the .405 may fix it.

(Theres a thing with me and a pps shock, if you have bypass holes in a shock to eliminate dampning its not a shock then, so pps is not a real shock to me.)[/b]
My dealer told me this .375 springs are fitted for 180 # rider and the .405 are 220# I just haven't changed them yet it seems the adjusting the length of the front straps would apply ski pressure ? I figured the .375 spring set at the highest setting would be somewhat same as .405 in the lowest sitting. thanks for the insight I test this tomorrow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
If you are just having the problem with keeping the skis planted under power in the corners, I might be tempted to pull up on the limiter straps enough to stop that. Try one hole, if that doesn't do it try the second. If that doesn't do it - start from the beginning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If you are just having the problem with keeping the skis planted under power in the corners, I might be tempted to pull up on the limiter straps enough to stop that. Try one hole, if that doesn't do it try the second. If that doesn't do it - start from the beginning.[/b]
you are suggesting shorten this length , there is 3 holes on one side of strap and 2 across which looks like 3" of total adjustment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
If you are just having the problem with keeping the skis planted under power in the corners, I might be tempted to pull up on the limiter straps enough to stop that. Try one hole, if that doesn't do it try the second. If that doesn't do it - start from the beginning.[/b]

But Al, then you are acutally taking travel away from the skid, would you agree to keep as much travel on hand as possible, tune with other setups to improve ride.
Shorting the straps will allow less lift, but will also allow less drop out of suspension.It would be a quick fix but I think digging in would be better.
Also preloads the front rail shock more and takes away from of the softness in the beginng of travel. Almost leading towards a lumber wagon ride.

(Don't mind us danmos, myself and michahics are always going back and forth at edge setups in a good way :thumbsup: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Danmos the direcitons that come with the 136 conv. states to put the rear torque arm in one of the three holes according to driver wieght. I've done a couple of them. Even fixed one that was dealer installed and it bent the shock rods and a few other things. It was istalled wrong! .375 or.405 are more what you prefer for ride and handling. The bunch of us that ride together (180-250lb) like the .405 better .375 too soft even on the high setting. It gets worse with a bunch of miles on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
On the straps, last time I looked, wasn't there slack in them with the sled sitting there on a flat surface? You're right Alsled, I generally don't like doing that otherwise - for the reasons you mention. I'm not a fan of coupling, unless you are setting up for really big hits and can't control bottoming any other way. That's what you are doing running the rear block in the front hole?

On the springs, man the 405's (.401?) are rough. For the heavier guys (like me!) I would think you might want to consider the roller trick? The one where you drill a new hole for them 1" directly above the existing rear hole. This gives enough preload to easily get a 300lb guy into spec with his sag, and doesn't make the sled ride like a lumber wagon. And don't worry about sagging the springs out quickly like this. I ran a set for 3 seasons without issue. Cheaper than buying the gold plated springs from Polaris too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Danmos the direcitons that come with the 136 conv. states to put the rear torque arm in one of the three holes according to driver wieght. I've done a couple of them. Even fixed one that was dealer installed and it bent the shock rods and a few other things. It was istalled wrong! .375 or.405 are more what you prefer for ride and handling. The bunch of us that ride together (180-250lb) like the .405 better .375 too soft even on the high setting. It gets worse with a bunch of miles on them.[/b]
Thanks I'll find a set of the .405 and I must of not seen the details on the 3 holes for the rear arm, do you remember the ratios for each of the holes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
On the straps, last time I looked, wasn't there slack in them with the sled sitting there on a flat surface? You're right Alsled, I generally don't like doing that otherwise - for the reasons you mention. I'm not a fan of coupling, unless you are setting up for really big hits and can't control bottoming any other way. That's what you are doing running the rear block in the front hole?

On the springs, man the 405's (.401?) are rough. For the heavier guys (like me!) I would think you might want to consider the roller trick? The one where you drill a new hole for them 1" directly above the existing rear hole. This gives enough preload to easily get a 300lb guy into spec with his sag, and doesn't make the sled ride like a lumber wagon. And don't worry about sagging the springs out quickly like this. I ran a set for 3 seasons without issue. Cheaper than buying the gold plated springs from Polaris too![/b]
Yes theres slack in them just sitting there, but when your going over rollers that slack comes out. Or when your just getting the sled up in the air. Thats what I meant by more drop out the suspension. So the sled is slowing down at a slower rate when going up because the straps are longer, Its just a smoother transition.

I run block in front hole biggest part forward to. 1, eliminate bite coming out of a turn, transfers less weight, lifts skis less. A loose vehilce has faster lap times then one that pushes. Downfall, I loose Distance in a drag race compared to a sled with blocks further back.

Its .405

As you know I never check sag, I tune to my butt and not the poo engineers butt.

Poo also makes a .405 90 degree, that is about 1/2 a click softer then the .405 77 Degree when both are placed in the lowest setting.

They do cost way to much for what your getting, but my riding style the .405 fall short once in a while set in the low position, thats when I turn the clicker from 1 to 3 or 4

Al, did you get out yet this year?, just saw the forcast here for next week, grass may start sprouting, 55 degrees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,404 Posts
Yes theres slack in them just sitting there, but when your going over rollers that slack comes out. Or when your just getting the sled up in the air. Thats what I meant by more drop out the suspension. So the sled is slowing down at a slower rate when going up because the straps are longer, Its just a smoother transition.

I run block in front hole biggest part forward to. 1, eliminate bite coming out of a turn, transfers less weight, lifts skis less. A loose vehilce has faster lap times then one that pushes. Downfall, I loose Distance in a drag race compared to a sled with blocks further back.

Its .405

As you know I never check sag, I tune to my butt and not the poo engineers butt.

Poo also makes a .405 90 degree, that is about 1/2 a click softer then the .405 77 Degree when both are placed in the lowest setting.

They do cost way to much for what your getting, but my riding style the .405 fall short once in a while set in the low position, thats when I turn the clicker from 1 to 3 or 4

Al, did you get out yet this year?, just saw the forcast here for next week, grass may start sprouting, 55 degrees.[/b]
Ok, you know I like my back end on the loose side too - but loose from a side bite standpoint, not acceleration. You're talking about a setup where an M-10 can stay with you. The idea of giving away traction that might be used to help accelerate the sled in the name of keeping the front end down doesn't play well for this old man. There are too many ways of dealing with that lift. Yes, it's a trade off, it may cost me somewhere else, but meanwhile I may have just pulled a length on you coming out of a corner or even a long sweeper - one you'll play hell getting back?

Yup, not going to get into the sag thing with you. I know you don't believe in running any.

I likely have 1000 - 1200 miles in to date this season. Have been at the Gaylord place most every weekend since 12/1. Been working hard getting the new sled dialed in. I love the motor/chassis/ergos/front end, but the rear suspension, well, let's just say it's a disappointment - though I may be gaining on it lately. Sled may well be an Edge candidate in the end - worst case, and that ain't all bad. -Al
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,019 Posts
Ok, you know I like my back end on the loose side too - but loose from a side bite standpoint, not acceleration. You're talking about a setup where an M-10 can stay with you. The idea of giving away traction that might be used to help accelerate the sled in the name of keeping the front end down doesn't play well for this old man. There are too many ways of dealing with that lift. Yes, it's a trade off, it may cost me somewhere else, but meanwhile I may have just pulled a length on you coming out of a corner or even a long sweeper - one you'll play hell getting back?

Yup, not going to get into the sag thing with you. I know you don't believe in running any.

I likely have 1000 - 1200 miles in to date this season. Have been at the Gaylord place most every weekend since 12/1. Been working hard getting the new sled dialed in. I love the motor/chassis/ergos/front end, but the rear suspension, well, let's just say it's a disappointment - though I may be gaining on it lately. Sled may well be an Edge candidate in the end - worst case, and that ain't all bad. -Al[/b]

One you'll play hell getting back.


Well the problem is in western NY we are in the woods alot, with tight and twistes, and 3 foot holes in the ground. I run with the a rev, the so called snowcross sled and a sno pro f7.
With my set up I just about give them a heart attack tring to keep up to me. Any stock edge is done, yammi.

Coming out the woods when they wack the gas, and push out in the turn, and I was following them, I cut inside them, stay on the hardpack, make my pass. :boogieboy:

To make up distance I can always break later going into the woods also.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top