Hardcore Sledder banner

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%
121 - 140 of 178 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Then why the hell wont they build a triple??!!! There are enough posts on this forum alone to let all of them know that we’d buy them…
I will tell you a a little fairy tale.
Once upon a time there was a sled manufacturer called Polaris. In the glorious year of 2005 they made a race sled called the IQR440. For years and years people moaned and groaned -Oh how much we'd like to get a consumer version of the fantastic race sled, they said.
In 2008 said sled manufacturer succumbed to the loud hords of wannabe racers and releaser the IQRR 600!
But disaster and despair!! No one bought the race replica cause it was deemed to hardcore and not comfortable enough. So for the next two years Polaris had to export the leftover sleds at great loss to a land far far away called Scandinavia, where people knew and understood suspension, and who's Viking blood would allow the locals to handle the monster sled.
The end.

The moral of the story is, there is a "noticeable gap" between offering an opinion on a sled forum and actually buying an expensive "special sled", and the OEMs have learned that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
I beg to differ, my 96 ZRT 600 did 114.7 on radar with just clutching.......thats 125hp......it now takes 165hp and an 850 to run that speed. Those triple were fast.
But what if you lower that 850 to the same profile and stance of the old triples?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
Didn't Yamaha try to do that with the recent SRX?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Tire Wheel Vehicle Snow Sky

I will tell you a a little fairy tale.
Once upon a time there was a sled manufacturer called Polaris. In the glorious year of 2005 they made a race sled called the IQR440. For years and years people moaned and groaned -Oh how much we'd like to get a consumer version of the fantastic race sled, they said.
In 2008 said sled manufacturer succumbed to the loud hords of wannabe racers and releaser the IQRR 600!
But disaster and despair!! No one bought the race replica cause it was deemed to hardcore and not comfortable enough. So for the next two years Polaris had to export the leftover sleds at great loss to a land far far away called Scandinavia, where people knew and understood suspension, and who's Viking blood would allow the locals to handle the monster sled.
The end.

The moral of the story is, there is a "noticeable gap" between offering an opinion on a sled forum and actually buying an expensive "special sled", and the OEMs have learned that.
yes very few bought those sleds I was one of them. and lucky for me I was able to find one again. the one sled I regret getting rid of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,416 Posts
The moral of the story is, there is a "noticeable gap" between offering an opinion on a sled forum and actually buying an expensive "special sled", and the OEMs have learned that.
Different times now. 2008 was a huge recession year in the states and nobody was buying expensive toys. That 600RR was crazy expensive at the time and not trail friendly at all.

These days people are paying relatively more $$$ for sleds, almost twice as much for an 850 turbo, and manufacturers can't keep up with demand or fancy options. A triple would check some new premium boxes for trail riders... Smooth operation. Long legs. Great sound. Most trail riders don't care about a little extra weight. A triple 900 would still be significantly lighter than a 4-stroke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Yeah I’m not buying the “little fairy tale” story. Apples and oranges. Anyone trying to compare a 600RR race sled spec to what we are all trying to say here about a beautiful sounding triple…is totally missing the story.

Anyway…

I think the point is coming across. Those of us that desire a triple are trying to convince the manufacturers to build one…not everyone to love them. If you love twins…awesome. I actually do too. They perform well. And are light. But I still want a triple and so do many others. I’m still a firm believer they’d sell big time.

But to each their own. Hopefully we all still get to have the good fortune of 4 manufacturers and multiple different kinds of sleds from 440 to 900cc…2 stroke to 4 stroke…turbo to naturally aspirated…light to heavy…165” tracks to 129”…

Point is…the variety is awesome and they all have a place in the market. Including a 2 stroke triple. The first one to do it will reap the rewards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,960 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Yeah I’m not buying the “little fairy tale” story. Apples and oranges. Anyone trying to compare a 600RR race sled spec to what we are all trying to say here about a beautiful sounding triple…is totally missing the story.

Anyway…

I think the point is coming across. Those of us that desire a triple are trying to convince the manufacturers to build one…not everyone to love them. If you love twins…awesome. I actually do too. They perform well. And are light. But I still want a triple and so do many others. I’m still a firm believer they’d sell big time.

But to each their own. Hopefully we all still get to have the good fortune of 4 manufacturers and multiple different kinds of sleds from 440 to 900cc…2 stroke to 4 stroke…turbo to naturally aspirated…light to heavy…165” tracks to 129”…

Point is…the variety is awesome and they all have a place in the market. Including a 2 stroke triple. The first one to do it will reap the rewards.
Talking about missing the point! I wasn't comparing these sleds, real or imagined, I was making a statement regarding the lessons that can be learned from history regarding what loud internet forum crowds say they will do contra what they actually go on doing.

If you one sunny day get your new triple then great, but I wouldn't count on it. The development cost alone would take the price tag through the roof, and the weight would be dangerously close to that of a 3cyl Yamaha/Cat 4s turbo so what would be the point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Im pretty sure it was the engine.I know a few engine builders that would disagree on your hp statement.The triples pretty much got weight penalized out of drag racing because the twins of the same hp couldnt compete so that says somthing.I dont know if you have ever heard the term “backup torque” but it definately applies in the twin vs triple debate.Im pretty sure that a zrt or xcr reed engine bolted in a modern day 600 chassis would be faster in a drag race than the sled with a twin 600.
Just a couple years ago a buddy of mine built a 440 triple that dominated on grass in 440 classes that summer and won quite a few races in classes with nearly double the ccs.Hearing a tripple 440 fly by at 10,000 rpm is somthing else.Im pretty sure that a modern 900cc would be pretty stout.
View attachment 2135929
HP is the ability to do work, as measured by the formula (tq (in lb-ft) x rpm)/5252. There is not a separate set of Physics rules for twins versus triples... Many of us miss triples, but to imply they somehow play to different rules is simply not true. I get the same type of thinking from some motorcycle enthusiasts who claim "V" engines have some mystical powerband enhancement... Urban legend, wishful thinking, take your pick...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Its the ability of more power pulses per rotation of the crank will make more power. You have one more cylinder drinking air and fuel over a twin to produce energy. The powerband will not be the same but overall power would be higher on a triple. You cant compare a 90s triple to a current 850 as technology is not the same by a long shot. Grab a modern 850 cylinder then pick up a 900 Tcat cylinder and you will be amazed those old girls made what they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sno_mo_racer

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Its the ability of more power pulses per rotation of the crank will make more power. You have one more cylinder drinking air and fuel over a twin to produce energy. The powerband will not be the same but overall power would be higher on a triple. You cant compare a 90s triple to a current 850 as technology is not the same by a long shot. Grab a modern 850 cylinder then pick up a 900 Tcat cylinder and you will be amazed those old girls made what they did.
Nice try, but physics is physics. hp is hp no matter how you try to spin it. Can triple be made to make more power? YES. Does a 125 hp triple make more power than a 125 hp twin? NO. It's like the old "what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pounds of steel" question... Is a12" piece of wood longer than a 12" piece of aluminum? See where I'm going with this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Nice try, but physics is physics. hp is hp no matter how you try to spin it. Can triple be made to make more power? YES. Does a 125 hp triple make more power than a 125 hp twin? NO. It's like the old "what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pounds of steel" question... Is a12" piece of wood longer than a 12" piece of aluminum? See where I'm going with this?
It matters but trying to explain technical details on this site to people who have not worked in this field is useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
Nice try, but physics is physics. hp is hp no matter how you try to spin it. Can triple be made to make more power? YES. Does a 125 hp triple make more power than a 125 hp twin? NO. It's like the old "what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pounds of steel" question... Is a12" piece of wood longer than a 12" piece of aluminum? See where I'm going with this?
Its not the same .Its been proven for years on drag sleds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
My guess is that Cat has some new ideas that need more testing before they will determine if those make it on the sled, and only then will they announce any new parts. Now that the public has seen the sled, they can spend an entire winter riding the trails out in the open and get some real world miles on it..

And a thumbs up on Cat only using one engine to start off. This gives them more time to get it right and build a good reputation on the new chassis, rather than 2012 where they made a new chassis and had to figure out calibrations and fittings for a whole slew of engines which resulted in a whole slew of problems.

I doubt Cat has anything more that the back 40 acres behind the factory to test a secret sled and keep it secret). Give SkiDoo credit, they have a huge testing facility with no public access, miles and miles of trails, grooming equipment, a full time crew to ride the sleds, the whole gamut. (located about 50 miles SE of Riviere du Loup if anyone is good with an earth map and can locate it,,,RDL is my main riding area and I haven't been able to locate it).

mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Its like saying that a 300 hp v6 tows the same as a 300 hp v8.It just doesnt.
Odd how your physics flies in the face of all those who claim big displacement V-twins have the upper hand on torque (in the motorcycling world). They, too, know their version to be true and absolute.

Everyone hums a difference tune but the real song book is called Physics and it only comes in one version.
 
121 - 140 of 178 Posts
Top