Hardcore Sledder banner

New Catalyst

12021 177
Starting this thread in the hopes of having a good, logical and informative conversation about the new chassis without having 6000 ZR RR act as self appointed moderator to every post made.

Who would buy a triple.

  • Example: Triple would cost an extra $5,000 for 10hp extra over a twin.

    Votes: 7 87.5%
  • Example: Triple would cost an extra $10,000 for 20hp extra

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Example: Triple would cost an extra $20,000 for 50hp extra

    Votes: 1 12.5%
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
The more I look at it the more I like it looks wise. I personally would have made the seat about 3- 4 inches longer. But that’s it. I like it a lot in the green and black. I like 136/137 sleds so that is on the money for me. So from what I can see I like it. I can go either way on the belt drive. But like that they got rid of that particular Chain case anyway. Longer front arm on rear skid so now it just like the rest more or less. Front end was already good. I like it so far. Broken record here but I’m in the camp of where the heck is the big bore they had years since doo changed the script. I know there are reasons I just don’t except them. Lot of excuses imo and in business I don’t except excuses I except results. Anyway so far doo and poo had a baby and a cat popped out. Good for them. Wellcome back to the table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
I think the sled looks good, especially the Riot and M sleds. Im curious though. Ive been on the website and watched the hype video and havent seen anything about belt drive. someone posted on here that they are. whats the real story? Belt drive would be the only real technology that Doo and Poo dont use so I would think Cat would make a bigger deal of it.
Poo has used a belt drive on certain mountain models for years. But not on flat land sleds. So if it’s true that would be a change in application from what it’s been used for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
If this was true, someone would be building it already... The OEM spend a lot of money on market research and know what the market wants. BTW, remember that the mfrs moved away from triples in good part because people weren't buying them...
I think marketing was the driving force behind that move also. All I can remeber about the death of the triples was all the ads. About “stump pullers , torque monsters etc “ and lightweight. My recollection could be off but It seems I remember article and torques monster shootouts etc and very little about triples. At least the smaller triples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
Manufacturers obviously helped push demand away from triples as twins cost less to produce. However, if demand for the triple had been strong and resilient, they would have stuck around; they did not. With sales numbers being what they are now, platforms need to be able to handle different engines and work in different segments. The big "go to" feature now is narrowness, and two-stroke triples are even wider than triple cammers, so again, am 99.9% certain you'll never another two-stroke triple. Also, notice how the mfrs are increasingly focusing on crossovers and mountain sleds? The two segments that would be most disadvantaged by a wide engine... Again, dreaming is cheap
Oh I agree I don’t see the triple coming back. And I’m not sure if they did if I would personally buy one at this point anyway. Was just commenting on how I remember the big shove to the big twins. I like narrow I have no interest in a wide body sled after riding the skinny ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
I think it was totally a money grab to switch to twins. (And I’m ok with it I guess it is a business not a charity ) I oook at it this way if they change a suspension , color , engine size , body work etc. some will buy it some will not. But at that time they had a whole industry of sales riding around on 3 bangers. It would have been genius for them to get together and convince this whole purchasing body that there 3 hole sleds were now all junk and blown away by the new advancements in twins. Which basically sent every single sled owner out to buy a new twin over the next couple years. That’s a way to boost sales in a big fashion. Imo. Yamaha tried the same thing with 4strokes but they didn’t have the other manus on board so it pretty much fell on its face. Unlike when they stayed odd duck out on the twin migration. And the other 3 moved to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,238 Posts
Yes, they lowered it slightly and I think gave it track with 1" lug I think, all in an effort to make it a lake king.

My point is, the high suspension, tall lug height, and tall profile of the modern 850s all hurt the acceleration and top speed. These things that make it a great trail and bump sled, hurt the acceleration and top speed. Now take a modern 800 or 850 and lower it, give it a low profile track, and tune it to chug fuel and oil (essentially making it a crappy trail sled), and you'd be surprised how well it will stand up against everyone's memories of what a 2-stroke triple would do. The other day at work, a guy was telling us what a crappy trail sled his Mach Z triple was; he admitted that it was fun on the lake for 2 to 3 passes but that was it.
The newer sleds are quicker but may lack a bit in top end for all the reason you listed. The Xcr800 and MachZ and yes belive it or not the storm (if I remember correctly. Ram 100 mph in the shootout the new 850s run 100mph at shootout. Even poo 800ho. I belive ran 100 a few years back. The difference is tue new sleds do this in 1000 ft or less. And the older iron took 1320 (1/4 miles to do it ) the wood gate track was longer. Yet my Xcr 800 ran 114-115 on radar before I even tinkered with it . Same with mach z. Again if I recall correctly a thunder lcat on the local lake lost about 7mph. Going from 1 inch track to a 1.25 on same day same lake same radar gun. But I can’t recall the studding so there may have been another factor involved there.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top