There are many differences in the rear sissor and rear torque arm lengths.

[attachment=641926:005.JPG]



The prox attack angle really sucks also as we allready know

[attachment=641925:004.JPG]

 

Moral of this is.

The relocation mod doesn't work for me, the edge torque links are worse, back to the drawing board.

Or just put a edge in the dam thing

Don't know what to do now.

 

Al I wonder if its not worth trying any way? When I did the front TQ arm mod I moved it 3/4" lower unlike every one else (7/8"). This did cause a fair amount of ski lift but the skid handled bumps like a snow cross champ and didnt beat the crap out of me . Th only real draw back was point and shoot , it lost to much turning ability under power. I think with a softer front track spring and pull the straps up to the second hole it would have been better and maybe lost 3/4" of net travel on the front arm. Basicly I didnt have the time to put into making it work better , Camp is 150 miles away from the heated shop and working on it outside in 10* days isnt my idea of a good time . i work on my stuff in september at home and trailer them up every weekend , the crew I ride with wants to ride not stop every few miles and chat and wrench .

 

xcmark

Thats the problem with the relocation mod, point and shoot, ski lifting.

Thing is, if you do the relocation mod, tighten the straps, your right back where you started with everything in stock locations.

Going back many years when I bought the 04 prox, I can remember 2 things, the psi 1155 sucked, and the prox skid sucked for a trail rider, loved the front end. rode many a prox's back then, rear sucked on the trail.

I'm lost, I'm really beginning to think the prox has no place as a cross country racing skid ( trail skid), just snowcross, with ca pro skis that kill you on the trail.

 

I'm on vacation out in the deserts near Phoenix, so maybe my brain is just fried excessively at the moment. With that in mind, take this for what it's worth. OK, I get the relocate and TSL link length change mods offer the potential for ski lift. Last I heard, you could deal with/control ski lift using coupling? Is there a real good reason coupling can't be used as part of this project without compromising it?

Fried in Phoenix....

 

Nice to see you enjoying your honeymoon...

 

I was working on my sled over the weekend and found that for me the best setup was with the relocation mod (3/4in not 7/8) then i moved the limiter strap shaft to the other set of holes about 2in down the rails then tighten up the limiter straps about 3/4 in or to the next hole then let the front suspension sag about .5-1in. this set up made the sag in the rear go from 4-5in to 1in. I also change the rear scissor blocks to the setting for better cornering. If you leave everything stock but loosen up the limiter strap by moving the shaft down the rail 2in like before, then you have to let the front end sag about 3in+ to get same 1in sag in the rear.

These are just some of the things that i have tried in the shop not on the trail.

 

Toa,

You could run more coupling, move the blocks further forward. But there is another issue that was going on with the edge links. As I compressed the suspension even further the sissors lost contact with the rss. The edge links are to short.

D rail,

Weve been together 13.5 years and considered ourselves one for many years, the wedding was just a formality, paper work should I say. Still a very special day.

Haysprox600

By doing the relocation mod you drop the front of the rear suspension down, causing ski lift, then by sucking the straps up you raise the skid back up, so as to limit ski lift. This puts the skid pretty much in the same spot as when you started. It increased front rail spring tension, so this is helping hold the sled up, also you are loosing travel as you tightened the straps. This all does not make sence to me as why one would do this, but if it works, great!!!!!! At this point you now have the same travel as a edge skid, and that works quite well.

 

Oh boy this isn't what I wanted to see. Whats the next move?

 

QUOTE (alsled @ May 17 2010, 07:49 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317160

By doing the relocation mod you drop the front of the rear suspension down, causing ski lift, then by sucking the straps up you raise the skid back up, so as to limit ski lift. This puts the skid pretty much in the same spot as when you started. It increased front rail spring tension, so this is helping hold the sled up, also you are loosing travel as you tightened the straps. This all does not make sence to me as why one would do this, but if it works, great!!!!!! At this point you now have the same travel as a edge skid, and that works quite well.[/b]

Fried view-
Relocating allows lift. It doesn't cause it. That lift can be controlled using a few different methods. One of those methods might be snugging up/taking any slack out of the limiters with everything sitting on a flat surface - not necessarily pulling up on them? Another method is by tuning front shock spring preload or position of rear stops? This is all regarding closely related tuning factors including front ride height, amount of transfer desired, how the sled is used, etc.

Relocating also increases preload on the front of the skid, which WILL help reduce squat when a tall front end is run (long shocks or a lot of spring preload). More conventional (trail) setup runs no spring preload on standard length shocks, leaves the front end ride height lower, which might make the relocation mod a waste of time as there is likely very little squat involved?

Al- Regarding the shorter links, the length of the link tied closely with the length of the front arm?

TOA

 

QUOTE (michahicks @ May 17 2010, 11:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317220

Fried view-
Relocating allows lift. It doesn't cause it. That lift can be controlled using a few different methods. One of those methods might be snugging up/taking any slack out of the limiters with everything sitting on a flat surface - not necessarily pulling up on them? Another method is by tuning front shock spring preload or position of rear stops? This is all regarding closely related tuning factors including front ride height, amount of transfer desired, how the sled is used, etc.

Relocating also increases preload on the front of the skid, which WILL help reduce squat when a tall front end is run (long shocks or a lot of spring preload). More conventional (trail) setup runs no spring preload on standard length shocks, leaves the front end ride height lower, which might make the relocation mod a waste of time as there is likely very little squat involved?

Al- Regarding the shorter links, the length of the link tied closely with the length of the front arm?

TOA[/b]

The shorter links pull the rear torque arm 7/8 further forward, This is why as travel goes on it pulls the rear sissor off the rss.

Sure you can loosen springs, suck straps up, move rss forward. Thing is this all will usually lead to a worse ride, coupling to fast, loss of travel, bottoming out.

Later today I will try to get measurements on sissors, torque arms. They are way different.

X2,

Worse case senario, actually best case, put a edge skid in it, or edge rear torque arm and sissors in the prox skid

 

Heres the dimensions of the sissor.

Edge 3 5/8 prox 4 1/4 The prox being a longer sissor applies more pressure on the rss and makes it collapse easier

[attachment=641993:003.JPG]

Heres the rear torque arm length

Edge 9 1/4 prox 8 1/2

[attachment=641994:004.JPG]

[attachment=642000:008.JPG]


Heres pics showing the prox front torque arm is mounted further back on the skid, note location of where the arm bolts to the chasis, and where the arm mounts to the skid. This applies more leverage to the spring / shock, making it collapse easier.

[attachment=641997:006.JPG]
This is probably why the prox doesn't pop off a hit, it folds to easy in the front, making it ride like a rock also

[attachment=641998:007.JPG]

I don't know what to do. I rode many a prox's with the prox rear, including mine, they were terrible in ride quality over the edge. When I bolted the edge in the 04 prox I was like on a majic carpet ride, and didn't bottom out either.

Theres so many negitive aspects of the prox skid. I see the hifax are big time wasted on the front of the rail, as the prox has flat attack angle.

Someone give me a good reason to continue on figuring out the prox skid, I don't see any reason right now.

I have to measure up the Iq skid and compare that also.

 

have you thought about covering up the old rear suspension mounting holes then drilling all new mounting holes to get the right balance between front and rear tq arm placement in the tunnel? Not sure if it would help but thought i would suggest it.

 

QUOTE (alsled @ May 17 2010, 06:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317425

Heres the dimensions of the sissor.

Edge 3 5/8 prox 4 1/4 The prox being a longer sissor applies more pressure on the rss and makes it collapse easier

Heres the rear torque arm length

Edge 9 1/4 prox 8 1/2



Heres pics showing the prox front torque arm is mounted further back on the skid, note location of where the arm bolts to the chassis, and where the arm mounts to the skid. This applies more leverage to the spring / shock, making it collapse easier.


This is probably why the prox doesn't pop off a hit, it folds to easy in the front, making it ride like a rock also


I don't know what to do. I rode many a prox's with the prox rear, including mine, they were terrible in ride quality over the edge. When I bolted the edge in the 04 prox I was like on a magic carpet ride, and didn't bottom out either.

Theres so many negative aspects of the prox skid. I see the hifax are big time wasted on the front of the rail, as the prox has flat attack angle.

Someone give me a good reason to continue on figuring out the prox skid, I don't see any reason right now.

I have to measure up the Iq skid and compare that also.[/b]

Wow... That explains why it ride's the way that it does. I have to wonder what was the thought process that went into building this skid? I cant see any reason to continue to fight this skid. Because this is basically what your doing, fighting the skid, I dont think there will ever be a happy medium that performs near as well as the edge. I say scrap it and go with what works.

 

QUOTE (hayesprox600 @ May 17 2010, 07:59 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317454

have you thought about covering up the old rear suspension mounting holes then drilling all new mounting holes to get the right balance between front and rear tq arm placement in the tunnel? Not sure if it would help but thought i would suggest it.[/b]

Good Idea,

I could try the prox skid with edge torque links at the 24 1/4 c-c distance the edge is at. You just brought a glimmer of hope.

 

Personally I like the prox skid with stiffer springs and revalved shocks.

 

QUOTE (jbshocks @ May 17 2010, 10:22 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317554

Personally I like the prox skid with stiffer springs and revalved shocks.[/b]

Me too, but in the spirit of this "discovery" thread, why not experiment with c to c to see what might work best?

 

QUOTE (jbshocks @ May 17 2010, 10:22 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317554

Personally I like the prox skid with stiffer springs and revalved shocks.[/b]

What springs are you running on the prox?

 

QUOTE (michahicks @ May 18 2010, 12:17 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317617

Me too, but in the spirit of this "discovery" thread, why not experiment with c to c to see what might work best?[/b]

Not sure what the spirit of discovery means?

I just know the prox vs edge in stock setup sags and rides like a rock. They also start with the same rear spring rates. So I'd like to discover why

 

QUOTE (alsled @ May 18 2010, 05:43 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317636

What springs are you running on the prox?[/b]

I run 375's up to about 230 and 405's beyond that. I like the 120 front track spring as well. I think what you will find is that mechanical advantage of the rear torque arm against the spring is more on the pro and it needs more spring. I would also bet that 75% of the prox sleds out there with over 1000 miles on them have sacked out springs. That is why when these sleds were new we used to see all the posts like "when I bought my prox the bumper sat all the way up now after 562 miles when I get off the sled I can lift the bumper 3 inches"

What I think would be a good experiment is to measure the rotation angle against the torsion springs on both sleds.

 

QUOTE (alsled @ May 18 2010, 05:45 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317637

Not sure what the spirit of discovery means?

I just know the prox vs edge in stock setup sags and rides like a rock. They also start with the same rear spring rates. So I'd like to discover why[/b]

C'mon Al, you know exactly why a suspensions sags. We've been here a hundred times. There is absolutely no difference between a sagging ProX or an Edge (or any other torsion spring equipped skid)? Raise the front ride height (without doing anything else) or install a wimpy front or rear skid spring in an Edge equipped sled and it will behave EXACTLY the same way the sagging ProX does. I'm clueless why you might believe otherwise? Same spring rates Edge vs. ProX, one sagging, one not, would tell me the sagging sled has a front end set high for the rest of it's set up? The front/center/rear weight distribution is screwed up. On the ProX, it's almost always the sagged (or under size) rear torsion springs, or somebody getting carried away with front ride height (too tall).

By "spirit of discovery" I meant make no assumptions here. See where this leads you. As in figure out what c to c (if any) will work with the TSL links you want to use (if you still think changing them will help anything)?

TOA

 

QUOTE (jbshocks @ May 18 2010, 07:35 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5317660

I run 375's up to about 230 and 405's beyond that. I like the 120 front track spring as well. I think what you will find is that mechanical advantage of the rear torque arm against the spring is more on the pro and it needs more spring. I would also bet that 75% of the prox sleds out there with over 1000 miles on them have sacked out springs. That is why when these sleds were new we used to see all the posts like "when I bought my prox the bumper sat all the way up now after 562 miles when I get off the sled I can lift the bumper 3 inches"

What I think would be a good experiment is to measure the rotation angle against the torsion springs on both sleds.[/b]

When you say .375 are you talking abot edge springs or prox springs?

The dia. of the coil is different and plays a hug role in the pressure they provide.

Smaller dia is stiffer, large dia is softer. Thats why a .359 prox small dia spring has the same pressure as the .375 edge large dia spring.

small dia springs also sag out faster because there is less actuall material doing the same amount of work.

Good point on the wind up angle of the spring, I'll compare both.



Toa,

theres a lot more to it then that, i talked to a few engineers on here and at work also. that sissor being 3 5/8 on the edge then going to 4 1/4 on the prox does apply more pressure to the rails with the same amount of wieght.


You also left out why the prox rides like a rock, and everyone I knew that had one hated the sled and got rid of them.


i measured up the Iq skid.

sissor is 3 3/4
torque arm is 9 1/4
Uses short links also.

I'm going to see if I can build a press with a pressue gaguge and compress each skid and compare what goes on

 

QUOTE (alsled @ May 18 2010, 07:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5318005

When you say .375 are you talking abot edge springs or prox springs?

The dia. of the coil is different and plays a hug role in the pressure they provide.

Smaller dia is stiffer, large dia is softer. Thats why a .359 prox small dia spring has the same pressure as the .375 edge large dia spring.

small dia springs also sag out faster because there is less actuall material doing the same amount of work.

Good point on the wind up angle of the spring, I'll compare both.



Toa,

theres a lot more to it then that, i talked to a few engineers on here and at work also. that sissor being 3 5/8 on the edge then going to 4 1/4 on the prox does apply more pressure to the rails with the same amount of wieght.


You also left out why the prox rides like a rock, and everyone I knew that had one hated the sled and got rid of them.


i measured up the Iq skid.

sissor is 3 3/4
torque arm is 9 1/4
Uses short links also.

I'm going to see if I can build a press with a pressue gaguge and compress each skid and compare what goes on[/b]

Prox springs not edge and they ride like a tank because they have 50% sit in instead of 20%

 

QUOTE (jbshocks @ May 18 2010, 07:31 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=5318016

Prox springs not edge and they ride like a tank because they have 50% sit in instead of 20%[/b]

I know they have to much set in and thats why they ride like a rock. But a edge with a .375 does not have to much set in. being that a edge and prox have similar rate springs, theres other issues. Thats why setting a sled up using sag to me is pretty much useless, I go by the buttometer, just can't get that through some peoples head. the only time I measure ride hieght was on the race cars, so we met minimum ride hieght.

My edge and prox and iq all have about 1.5

read post 28

http://www.hardcoresledder.com/forums/inde...73672&st=20

 

I have some experience with this talk of suspension changes. I put a 2008 F series Sno Pro suspension into my 2004 ZR900. The C/C changed on it and I found the 04 suspension sat lower in the tunnel. The 08 F series rides better than the 04 ZR so in theory it should make for a better ride in my sled. I put 1100mi on the change this year and found it rode about the same as the 04 and in fact would bottom way too easily for my tastes on big G - out bumps at speeds above 30mph. I used my stock 23 3/4" mounting points in the tunnel with the front arm dropped about 1 1/4" (or so) due to the track hitting the tunnel cooler/stud protectors. The rear point was the same as stock. As it turned out the experience with the ride quality and other stuff made me try moving the simple suspension adjustments around during the season (which I never do) to experiment with which changes would make a difference in bottoming out and ride quality. I found that by setting the rear limiter blocks to the softest settings would help studder bump ride quality. I had them on three which doesn't seem like it would make a great change but what I think it did was to not allow the rear shock to give full travel. It limited it too much. That along with my 1/2" incorrect mounting point in the rear (should be 23 1/4" for a F series mount) and the fact I was up in the tunnel instead of below the tunnel like is used on F series was limiting my spring/shock combinations. I had tried changing spring block tensions but all that did was to make it ride rougher on 6 - 12" bumps at speeds of 30-50mph. 50mph and up the high speed valving and spring combination was ok. One thing I've learned by my experiences with this is that small changes in mounting points like the rear suspension points can make a big difference in the ride quality. Probably due to that rear scissor effect you mention on paper. The angles of it along with the spring rates and shock valving.

So, what I ended up changing on mine this spring was this:
1. I had the shocks sent to Hygear for their "trail performance" package. I told them about my valving experiences with how it worked for 1100mi and they told me that it's almost impossible to get a 2 stage system to work 100% in all conditions. That's why they sell remote reservoir shocks. That's their premium package that can solve a lot of these ride quality issues on more terrain types. I went with the Sno Pro setup with what I had for now to keep the cost down. They said it will be a better ride but non adjustable and their shock valving should achieve what I asked for but will be limited when the shocks start to fade under heavy stresses of high speed running over 1 ft moguls. Should be interesting this coming season to see how that works out.

2. I moved my rear mounting points down by about 1 1/2". I used Crossfire/Firecat drop brackets to mount the suspension below the tunnel. This required some measuring to get it right. I used a stick with holes spaced 23 1/4" apart and mounted the brackets with the stick in place. This ensured that I got them exactly the same on both sides. The steel brackets fit well and I've mounted them with grade 8 fasteners so I should be good there. The brackets also are fairly large to distribute the stress over a good size area of the tunnel. And the reason I did the drop brackets to begin with is that on the ride height check I found that the front of the rear suspension was hitting the floor first. I had tried last season to compensate for this by pulling in the limiter strap by 1/2" but I think that was part of my problem. By limiting the front shock travel you do two things. First you are compressing the shock too much to begin with so that gives you a harsher ride. Plus limiting the travel doesn't allow the suspension to do what it is supposed to do. And that is to absorb energy from the motion. Less travel = less absorption = a bumpy ride. Also, the stock Sno Pro shocks are known to give a harsher ride due to the fact that they are intended for people who like to jump and ride like Sno Cross wannabees. Most people (99%) of snowmobilers don't ride like that they just think they want to. And hence what is a ProX intended for ? I'd say Sno Cross style of riding. I even seem to remember reading that in the brochures for them. AC does the same things. In any case moving the rear suspension points to a different point below the tunnel allows my rear suspension to lower flat against the ground after having it raised up. Flat on the ground will allow the suspension to do what it was designed to do without any limitations of the other compromises I had made at the beginning of the season.

3. Put a dual rate spring from Hygear on the front suspension shock. Again, the front arm and shock are way too stiff and it was noticeable when pushing on it with the stock spring. Limiting the travel would just send the shock of the bump to the rear arm and just making the whole sled pitch upwards. Not a desirable trait. Allowing a softer front shock/spring would allow the bump compliance at the front and the piggy back to the rear arm and shock when the bump went there. The teeter-todder effect in sled suspension. This design idea works on the fact that the front shock does it's job and the rear shock does it's job. If not then you'll get pitching occurring if the spring is too strong or bottoming if it's too weak in the rear.

4. I had another issue with the suspension as well. The front shock mounts on the rails had loosened up the nuts and wore out the holes into egg shaped ones. I had to get that welded up and then redrill them for the front shock points. This point was not changed but I got it as close to the original as possible thanks to some guys who measured up their 08' mounting points. I believe mine to be close to where they should be at this time. But, that also is a factor. You need to check your front shock to make sure that the shock isn't the limiter for the suspension. That's the limiter straps job. If the limiter is too long you be banging the shock and will eventually destroy it internally. I checked mine closely after I redrilled the holes but if you are playing with the limiter straps you should take a close look at this as well.

My set in on the setup during the fall was about 50% drop when just sitting on the sled. Now it sets about 20%. Same springs, revalved shocks, 23 1/4" mounting points and drop brackets.

Hope this helps.

Steve (not a suspension expert but I play one on TV)

Good luck ! I always like those Pro X sleds. Checked them out closely when they were for sale at the dealership and remember clearly comparing it to a Edge sled and man the Pro X was stiff compared to the Edge.

In the end and again after reading your whole thing on this I have to ask.... What are you trying to achieve with the Pro X skid instead of just using the Edge skid which you seem to be happy with ?