Why did Polaris stop using the belt drive?

[Longhairfreak]

Didn't everybody say they were more efficient than the chain?

 

[Irocaz]

I stopped in at a dealer a few weeks ago to window shop and they are using belts on the new units with 2.6 tracks but 3.0 are still chain. I'm assuming this because of the extra traction it needs the strength?

 

[Longhairfreak]

I stopped in at a dealer a few weeks ago to window shop and they are using belts on the new units with 2.6 tracks but 3.0 are still chain. I'm assuming this because of the extra traction it needs the strength?

I over looked that. So I'm assuming that if the 3 in tracks load the belt more then the belt would be the weak link.

 

[tmo1620]

Polaris' belt drive is a joke so I see why they would not trust it with a 3" track. A nice specialty belt drive or TKI kit is a huge upgrade over the chain

I over looked that. So I'm assuming that if the 3 in tracks load the belt more then the belt would be the weak link.

 

[pfi572]

Polaris' belt drive is a joke so I see why they would not trust it with a 3" track. A nice specialty belt drive or TKI kit is a huge upgrade over the chain

Exactly!! Just a poor design .

 

[Caper11]

Exactly!! Just a poor design .

Lol I told that to the polaris engineer at the sled show when it first came out, apparently he was the one who designed it and was offended by my comment.
Stick a longer belt on it with a tensioner from the factory and the belt drive will handle the 3” easily.

 

[pfi572]

I had better luck with C3 prototype on a 174 X3 then chain on my Doo.
Just better design at tension set correctly.

 

[Teth-Air]

You guys are way off. It is not that it is too weak to handle the 3" track, it is because the 3" track requires gearing down and the current design is geared too high. It is a cheap, light design but is kinda a half-assed approach because it has no tensioner to allow the belt to wrap around the top gear.

 

[tmo1620]

Not way off at all, yes it may be geared a little high for a 3" but thats an easy change.That belt drive is the cheapest possible way to have a belt drive on a sled. Its almost as if they said " ok Burandt said go belt drive but we gotta do it cheap..... like whatever spare parts you can find in the junk bins cheap" and pow there you have a polaris belt drive. Then 1 guy pipes up " but what if the belt blows ?.... how the hell do you change it and wont the sled have no brakes without it ?" Thats it you thought outside the box...... your fired

You guys are way off. It is not that it is too weak to handle the 3" track, it is because the 3" track requires gearing down and the current design is geared too high. It is a cheap, light design but is kinda a half-assed approach because it has no tensioner to allow the belt to wrap around the top gear.

 

[FernieHawk]

Not way off at all, yes it may be geared a little high for a 3" but thats an easy change.That belt drive is the cheapest possible way to have a belt drive on a sled. Its almost as if they said " ok Burandt said go belt drive but we gotta do it cheap..... like whatever spare parts you can find in the junk bins cheap" and pow there you have a polaris belt drive. Then 1 guy pipes up " but what if the belt blows ?.... how the hell do you change it and wont the sled have no brakes without it ?" Thats it you thought outside the box...... your fired

No brakes is right.

Friend blew a belt on his Polaris, I towed him back to my truck with my Cat and winched it up on the deck. Drove to my friends place and parked in the relatively steep drive way. Wiggled it off the deck onto the ramp...down the ramp I went...grabbed the brake and I was like WTF. Went rolling out into the middle of what is one of the busier roads in Fernie. Lucky I didn't end up as road Kill.

I would like to mention that my Cat's brake is on the drive shaft...that's what I'm used to.

 

[Caper11]

You guys are way off. It is not that it is too weak to handle the 3" track, it is because the 3" track requires gearing down and the current design is geared too high. It is a cheap, light design but is kinda a half-assed approach because it has no tensioner to allow the belt to wrap around the top gear.

Nope, its very simple engineering. Not gearing, No ability to adjust a belt = increased chance of belt breakage due to slippage.

Why is there a belt deflection adjustment on the main belt drive and no adjustment on the secondary belt drive.
Its a very poor design, but a tensioner adds mass.
The hardest thing to do when dealing with engineering, is convincing them that their idea can be improved.

 

[MK4TDI]

Haha that's a good way of putting it, improved instead of wrong.

 

[pfi572]

The hardest thing to do when dealing with engineering, is convincing them that their idea can be improved.[/QUOTE]

You know this how?
You a engineer??

 

[Caper11]

You know this how?
You a engineer??

Lol, nope just lots of experience sitting in drawing reviews with them.

I love commissioning new equipment.

 

[gunner3006]

The 3” polaris never came with belt drive. I love my belt drive, will never go back to chain. I just don’t like how much snow gets in and around that area. I always have snow on my battery and all around my quickdrive set up.

 

[niner]

3” 174 on my turbo pro with quick drive. Never had a issue.

 

[KatMan]

Are you gonna get on it some day or keep letting your wife drive it?

 

[Teth-Air]

Nope, its very simple engineering. Not gearing, No ability to adjust a belt = increased chance of belt breakage due to slippage.

Why is there a belt deflection adjustment on the main belt drive and no adjustment on the secondary belt drive.
Its a very poor design, but a tensioner adds mass.
The hardest thing to do when dealing with engineering, is convincing them that their idea can be improved.

I believe that Polaris decided not to have a tensioner because they did not want a system that the owner could adjust the belt tension. The belts last a long time only if the tension is correct. Over tighten or run too loose and they can fail. They wanted an idiot proof design over a design that actually worked better.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

I believe that Polaris decided not to have a tensioner because they did not want a system that the owner could adjust the belt tension. The belts last a long time only if the tension is correct. Over tighten or run too loose and they can fail. They wanted an idiot proof design over a design that actually worked better.

This can be said about the chain drive as well.

 

[tmo1620]

TethAir has confirmed it, most Polaris riders are idiots.......... I concur..... and before everyone gets their panties wedged up their a$$es I said MOST... not all

I believe that Polaris decided not to have a tensioner because they did not want a system that the owner could adjust the belt tension. The belts last a long time only if the tension is correct. Over tighten or run too loose and they can fail. They wanted an idiot proof design over a design that actually worked better.