Longhairfreak
Active VIP Member
Didn't everybody say they were more efficient than the chain?
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Caper11;2596241 The hardest thing to do when dealing with engineering said:Haha that's a good way of putting it, improved instead of wrong.
You know this how?
You a engineer??
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.
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.