Cost savings is not a major reason to do this change IMO. I come from an auto manufacturing background. There has to be a performance/durability improvement to justify the change as well. My experience with these TSS-04 compression secondaries so far is that they have way too much binding. I've even seen some that refuse to act properly such as the one on Johnny Cash's 2015 Rush 800. We switched from his secondary to his buddy's in the UP and it made a big difference. Same thing happened that day when I installed my Tied secondary on his sled. That tied also worked very repeatedly on my own 2015 Pro-S 800. A similar style secondary I use on my 2000 XCR 800 (Paragon) is so repeatable as to be amazing. And, it's a much better torsional design. You can change a belt with one hand and no tools.Get the cost savings; take the 230k and divide by 2, because full retail is usually double dealer cost.... 150k, and I would guess Polaris cost is 1/2 of dealer, so divide by 2 again and it’s 75k. But, 75k is 75k none the less. It all adds up.
I understand how the force is applied. But, friction in this application is a fairly big deal IMO. See my previous post.The resulting force on the Y axis is a result of the angle at wich the roller touches the ramp.
It doesn't matter how far the roller center is from the contact point.
I agree on reducing friction but I don't know how big of a difference it will make. We need to do some testing
I suspect that this change in roller diameter is designed to reduce the binding. Apparently, the friction at the roller is a fairly large factor. Field testing as well as track dynoing is needed to see how much it changes things. The Tied secondaries apply the belt driving forces to both sheaves rather than just one. That seems to need larger angled helixes and less spring tension to control shifting variations. My Tied uses a 75-59 .46 helix. Spring is a red/blue 140-200. And, it's too stiff as it tends to over rev in my 2015 about 100-150 rpms compared to the original 58-44 .36 helix with black 100-200 +/- TSS-04 setup with 3 Delrins. See post #404 below:I don't get why they don't adress the coil binding issue that we currently solve with delrin washers and roller bearings
Your right on the savings. For 5000 units. I admittedly got lazy on calculations. Dealers buy parts at around 30% less than retail, it really depends on which part. Profit margin might be more or less, but 30% is what I saw last year as the main ammount. Not 50%. However polaris makes money on the parts too. So polaris probably paid 60% give or take from retail.. Lets say 60% from retail. So Polaris pays aound 6 bucks for each for the new style roller from who ever manufactures the rollers.Get the cost savings; take the 230k and divide by 2, because full retail is usually double dealer cost.... 150k, and I would guess Polaris cost is 1/2 of dealer, so divide by 2 again and it’s 75k. But, 75k is 75k none the less. It all adds up.
My auto company marked parts up by about 800%. Not sure what the markup is nowadays.Your right on the savings. For 5000 units. I admittedly got lazy on calculations. Dealers buy parts at around 30% less than retail, it really depends on which part. Profit margin might be more or less, but 30% is what I saw last year as the main ammount. Not 50%. However polaris makes money on the parts too. So polaris probably paid 60% give or take from retail.. Lets say 60% from retail. So Polaris pays aound 6 bucks for each for the new style roller from who ever manufactures the rollers.
So by that. The old 38 dollar roller polaris used . The old cost per roller was 15.2 dollars a roller. So 15.2 - 6 is $9.2 dollars savings per roller for polaris by using the newer roller.
Last year about 123,000 new snowmobiles were sold world wide. Out of the 4 big companies. So just to make it easy, 123,000 divinded by 4. Your at about 30,750 snowmobiles. Let's say 15% of that uses the P2 secondary... Do they even still use that??? I honestly dont know. Thats 26,000 snowmobiles.
So 9.2 dollars savibgs per roller. Each sled needs 2 rollers. 9.2 x 2 = $18.4. My rough guess on how many units need the rollers. 26000 units last year. $18.4 savings per sled x 26000 sleds. Your at $478,000 in savings a year.
The 5000 sleds I threw out in my last calculations were just a random number.
And my numbers and guesses could totally be wrong. My entire theory could be wrong. But its clear there is a big difference in price in rollers. Polaris is saving money. Thats a fact. How much? We dont really know. I made an educated guess with the numbers I saw in the parts depertment ordering parts at the dealer I was at. What polaris pays for the parts, thats a total guess. I have no idea. But with a guess of 26,000 units using the tss04 thats a big savings of something. 38 bucks is more than double the price of the 15 dollar rollers. Thats big. Really big. You dont get the opportunity to save money like that very often. Why wouldnt a company make the decision to make it happen? Especially with a part they already get... And they probably sell more than 26000 sleds with the tss04 since the market isnt divided equally amond the 4 manufactures. Polaris is second place.
If I'm even close to the savings. Thats huge savings. But since the helix is billet that savings probably isnt as much. But its still there in a heavy amount if they sell as many units as they do.
Looking at the helix. It looks like polaris is taking it into a slight performance gain. Its a lighter helix. That ammount of material taken out where the ramp isnt is a good chunk. Just like how the rzrs and sportsman helixes are.
Anyways, testing will tell what performance gains are if there are any. And hopefully there are some. That would be great! But honestly. I just dont see any to be had.
Coming from a manufacturing/engineering degree. Those are thing you look out for if you can. How can you save money and make things lighter? Our formula sae team focused on making the car lighter than previous teams cars. Our goal was sub 400lb car. We were told by previous teams who popped their head in now and then that we wouldnt be able to make it happen. No team ever made that happen. We made a strategy to reduce hardware as much as possible. Less holes drilled, less cuts. (each hole, or cut cost us money). So we did just that. We reduced the ammount of bolts and fasteners need to build each section of the car. In turn, we saved money too. Were already paying for the hard parts to be made, why should we have to pay more in fasteners? Competition came along and it was time for the official weigh in. 385lbs. And our car was cheaper to produce than previous years. Enginnering teams have goals they set. And they find ways to accomplish those goals. If polaris said, "Hey our goal is to save money somewhere." The passionate ones will find that and hopefully find a way to increase performance too. Hopefully I'm wrong, and it wasnt JUST to save money.
Thats a debate for another thread. All I know is dealers pay for parts from polaris for around 30% under retail. For all I know polaris only pays 50 cents for the rollers. I have no idea. But I was the one who ordered all the parts for a season. So that I know.My auto company marked parts up by about 800%. Not sure what the markup is nowadays.