Hardcore Sledder banner

61 - 80 of 134 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
I did an ancanced search. Looks like the 21 rmk and assault will be using the old roller. The trail sleds and matryx chassis will be using the new roller. According to polaris website at this time. It might change.

Also... This is not a new roller it turns out. Polaris has been using this "new" roller on some sportmans (570s it seems), rzr and generals and since 2016.

The old roller has also been used on higher cc engines on the offroad vehicles too.

It seems they think the old roller will take more of a beating. And think the trail sleds can handle the weaker rollers?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Acording to polaris webside parts break down. The springs are indeed the same as previous years.
You are at least as wrong as I was.

I will be changing post#1 of the gearing/clutching post, by the addition of the words "Matryx" to the MY21 850 Patriot column:

I have not changed the spring numbers, they agree with Online Parts at this moment,
and I don't have time right now, to investigate the "other" MY21 850 Patriot clutching, but...

as of 10/15/2020​
Polaris Factory Clutch Settings at Sea Level.


---------- MY21 ---- / --- MY21 ---- / -- MY20 ---
-------------------- / -- Matryx
------ 650 PATRIOT - / 850 PATRIOT - / -850 Patriot

PRIMARY (Drive) Clutch
weights .. 10-66 ... / ... 10-72 ... / .. 10-72
......... 1321584 .. / .. 1322428 .. / . 1322428

spring .. Black4537 ./ Almond/Gold . / .Black2287
..........120/320 .. / .. 150/290 .. / . 110/290
......... 7044537 .. / .. 7041645 .. / . 7042287

SECONDARY (Driven) Clutch
helix 58/44-.36 BA35 / 58/44-.36 BA35 / 58/44-.36 BA35
......... 5143872 BR / .. 5143872 BR ./ . 5140311

spring .. LH Black . / .. LH Black .. / . Red/Blue
..........155/222 .. / .. 155/222 ... / . 140/200
......... 7043063 .. / .. 7043063 ... / . 7043057


NOTE: BR (Big Roller) identifies helixes that work with the
3514929 ROLLER-BTD, 9.58mm ID x28.83 OD x13.97W, CE $15US.
Helixes without the "BR" are intended to work with smaller OD rollers such as:
5434534 Roller (Secondary) 23.75mm OD $38US
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
I did an ancanced search. Looks like the 21 rmk and assault will be using the old roller. The trail sleds and matryx chassis will be using the new roller. According to polaris website at this time. It might change.

Also... This is not a new roller it turns out. Polaris has been using this "new" roller on some sportmans (570s it seems), rzr and generals and since 2016.

The old roller has also been used on higher cc engines on the offroad vehicles too.

It seems they think the old roller will take more of a beating. And think the trail sleds can handle the weaker rollers?
Some of the online Parts is off, I'm pretty sure.

Take a look at the MY21 AXYS 850 Switchback Assault 144, open up the DriveTrain, Clutch, Secondary diagram


you will see:

3. 5143872 (the Big Roller helix used in all the Matryx)
5. 5434534 (the older Small OD roller)
8. 7043057 (the MY20 850 Patriot flatland LH Red/Blu spring)

I don't think they really want the small roller in a helix track made for the large roller, I think it would cause an impact, similar but not as strong, as when a sled has been in reverse (the roller is in the PERC notch of the helix) and then goes into forward motion, and you get that clunk or SLAM, depending on the throttle, This could happen every time you jump on the throttle, after having let off, with track motion.

I rate the MY21 non-Matryx clutching information from online parts, as shaky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfm and MuscleD

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
Some of the online Parts is off, I'm pretty sure.

Take a look at the MY21 AXYS 850 Switchback Assault 144, open up the DriveTrain, Clutch, Secondary diagram


you will see:

3. 5143872 (the Big Roller helix used in all the Matryx)
5. 5434534 (the older Small OD roller)
8. 7043057 (the MY20 850 Patriot flatland LH Red/Blu spring)


.
I don't think they really want the small roller in a helix track made for the large roller, I think it would cause an impact, similar but not as strong, as when a sled has been in reverse and then goes into forward motion, and you get that clunk or SLAM, depending on the throttle, This could happen every time you jump on the throttle, after having let off, with track motion.

I rate the MY21 non-Matryx clutching information from online parts, as shaky.
I can get behind that. It does seem odd. Something is funky with it. It doesnt make sense to change the roller, therefore making the helix different if they are going to continue using the old rollers. To have to have different rollers and helixes mixed all through the snowmobile lineup. It doesnt make any sense at all. They all should get the new roller and completly unuse the old roller. I got a feeling your 100% correct and its just a parts fische issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
So is it as simple as just changing rollers to the smaller diameter rollers and using your preferred tss04 helix of choice?.....or too early to determine. I do question the ability of using the same stock helix with the small rollers, but changing helix and rollers should work fine together, no?

If not....screw it...I'll throw on my spare Tss04 roller and run whatever I want back there....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,363 Posts
So is it as simple as just changing rollers to the smaller diameter rollers and using your preferred tss04 helix of choice?.....or too early to determine. I do question the ability of using the same stock helix with the small rollers, but changing helix and rollers should work fine together, no?

If not....screw it...I'll throw on my spare Tss04 roller and run whatever I want back there....
yes the previous version will bolt in and work fine .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,508 Posts
The force is one coming from one direction. Exactly horizontal to the ramp profile. But its contact is at an angle. But the ramp angle is not on that same path. The force is dicipated. Some of it goes to rotating the clutch on the jack shaft some is pushing the roller along the ramp angle. So the actual force pushing at that lever arm is smaller than the total force. The lever arm change is only .0998" with the bigger roller. Since its only pushing one side of the roller the the center of the lever arm. (Assuming that when you are talking about lever arm, you mean outside of roller to the center of the roller arm.)

I really think polaris did this for themselves, not us. They only sell sleds with single track helix anyways so who cares. They did this to save money. The roller change is so minimal at the radius its nothing we will notice. I think if you think this is a performance change, your really reaching here. .0998" is nothing at a lever arm. Especially when that force is coming at it at an angle. This is a money saver for polaris.
The more I study this large roller influence, the more I see the probable effect it can have. For example, as the belt pulls the helix along the roller, the spring is being compressed. The larger roller will tend to enter the 44 degree angle sooner than a smaller roller because the spider will be slightly farther from the spring mounting surface. This changes the spring to a lighter tension. Small effect? But may be why they increased the spring to a higher tension.
 

·
Registered
19 600 Switchback Assault
Joined
·
164 Posts
Yeah maybe it made a big enough difference for the need of a stiffer spring. That could explain why they made big changes on matryx 850 clutching but kept the same on 21 axys 850
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
The more I study this large roller influence, the more I see the probable effect it can have. For example, as the belt pulls the helix along the roller, the spring is being compressed. The larger roller will tend to enter the 44 degree angle sooner than a smaller roller because the spider will be slightly farther from the spring mounting surface. This changes the spring to a lighter tension. Small effect? But may be why they increased the spring to a higher tension.
Its mind boggling isnt it lol I cant fully wrap my head around what it would change either honestly. Heres my thinking on it. The spring cup spider pins the roller sit on. Needs to travel the same amount still. Same distance. The roller will roll less to travel the same distance. That we can agree on for sure. The roller pin on the spring cup will be .10" farther from the helix ramp. Which means compared to the smaller roller.. The spring cup pins will be slightly lower compared to where to roller is contacting the helix... Which would mean the spring isnt being as compressed at the same spot the ramp, relative to the roller to ramp location. Compared to smaller roller... However the thing is. That distance the spring cup will be constantly sitting lower, is probably half of the roller raduis difference... So .05". Thats less than a delrin washer? If I remember correct.

But that means the spring at full shift isnt as compressed... By about .05". Will that be an effect we can see? I dont think so. Especially when soneone throws a delrin washer in there.

Edit:by spring cup pins. I mean the part the spring sits in where the rollers attach to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,283 Posts
Its mind boggling isnt it lol I cant fully wrap my head around what it would change either honestly. Heres my thinking on it. The spring cup spider pins the roller sit on. Needs to travel the same amount still. Same distance. The roller will roll less to travel the same distance. That we can agree on for sure. The roller pin on the spring cup will be .10" farther from the helix ramp. Which means compared to the smaller roller.. The spring cup pins will be slightly lower compared to where to roller is contacting the helix... Which would mean the spring isnt being as compressed at the same spot the ramp, relative to the roller to ramp location. Compared to smaller roller... However the thing is. That distance the spring cup will be constantly sitting lower, is probably half of the roller raduis difference... So .05". Thats less than a delrin washer? If I remember correct.

But that means the spring at full shift isnt as compressed... By about .05". Will that be an effect we can see? I dont think so. Especially when soneone throws a delrin washer in there.

Edit:by spring cup pins. I mean the part the spring sits in where the rollers attach to.
Crazy thinking isn't it. Because the helix pocket is cut to a larger dia all components are still at the same location relative to the spring compression and rotational force.

I need my sled :p
 

·
Premium Member
20 850 Assault
Joined
·
2,742 Posts
Crazy thinking isn't it. Because the helix pocket is cut to a larger dia all components are still at the same location relative to the spring compression and rotational force.

I need my sled :p
Yep, the roller itself will rotate less given the same helix travel/ sheave opening is all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Well.....regardless...I.....like most of us probably have 4 or 5 tss04 helixes kicking around that I would like the ability to continue to use. If the roller swap allows me to continue to use my plethora of TSS04 helixes then a roller change here I come....If there is some other brilliance in engineering that they decided to implement for whatever reason other than cost?....and suddenly there is no other options to purchase because vendors will require tooling changes to cut new helixes to accommodate....then I may as well replace the secondary with a previous model TSS04 that has been used...and is till being used to this day....or purchase a tied venom clutch.

The whole thing seems rediculous and an effort to either save/make more money somehow...
 

·
Registered
19 600 Switchback Assault
Joined
·
164 Posts
Crazy thinking isn't it. Because the helix pocket is cut to a larger dia all components are still at the same location relative to the spring compression and rotational force.

I need my sled :p
I agree with that but like we talked before, the lever arm that applies the force is a little bit different and because the roller is larger, if the first angle (58) is still .33inch long, it could transition into second angle (44) sooner but I think they must also have changed the radius where the transition is made and therefore will make no change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Well.....regardless...I.....like most of us probably have 4 or 5 tss04 helixes kicking around that I would like the ability to continue to use. If the roller swap allows me to continue to use my plethora of TSS04 helixes then a roller change here I come....If there is some other brilliance in engineering that they decided to implement for whatever reason other than cost?....and suddenly there is no other options to purchase because vendors will require tooling changes to cut new helixes to accommodate....then I may as well replace the secondary with a previous model TSS04 that has been used...and is till being used to this day....or purchase a tied venom clutch.

The whole thing seems rediculous and an effort to either save/make more money somehow...
I second this. I will be taking my never used TSS-04 w/smaller rollers driven clutch and slap that onto the VR1. Couple different ways to skin a cat here to make it work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
May all be a cost saving issue. The helix is fixed in place on the movable face. The bearing pin spring cup is not fixed in place. Do the larger rollers with their larger contact area on the helix provide stability preventing binding as the helix move over them, thus making shifting more consistent? I really think they just want to screw with Rick!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,283 Posts
I agree with that but like we talked before, the lever arm that applies the force is a little bit different and because the roller is larger, if the first angle (58) is still .33inch long, it could transition into second angle (44) sooner but I think they must also have changed the radius where the transition is made and therefore will make no change.
Back when we used the button 2ndary's with multiple angles you could use a step helix where there was no blend but an actual step where the angle changed or a progressive helix where the helix had no step but would progressively change from one angle to the next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,024 Posts
This is being way over thought. It was done to save a buck.
I will always agree with this. This is what it is. Money saving. It saves polaris 46 bucks give or take per sled (using retail prices as the difference). That only takes 5000 units with that savings of $230,000 dollars. The program is already finished for the larger slot in the same helix cast.

My point in previous posts was that the change is so small. We wont notice it. Adding 3 delrin washers is a much bigger impact... And we honestly cant even feel that. So for this change to think is performance oriented.... It just isnt. The numbers in savings is just too substantial to ignore. Polaris did alot of r&d for their new body, handlebar warmers and display. They had to cut costs somewhere. This was the easiest solution to save money.

If you can stand up and say to the company. "I know how we can save hundreds of thousands of dollars, eventually into millions in savings. We already have the parts needed for it and it takes one change on a machining program that already exists." Yeah lets do that. Simple as that.
 
61 - 80 of 134 Posts
Top