I love my can-am, but you have to admit, when these frames bend- it ain't pretty.
This kid appears to have rolled his 08 400 outty max- I don't think rolling a traditional tube frame would cause the front half of an atv to point 25* off center!

I'm not bashing outty's, I'm a huge can-am fan- I love mine! just saying- all those can-am owners who think their spar frame is as good as a tube chassis, instead of replacing just a few bent bolt-ons, this atv is totaled! The front aluminum secondary bracing is all bent up, the steering is crushed and the frame totally tweeked! It didn't even roll very far.

 

This is exactly why I; 1) Ride a Polaris. Strongest frame in the business. Makes a heavy machine but I'll take that over a weak frame. 2) Did the frame modification on my son's Renegade. It's amazing how much stronger it is when you put a big chunk of high molecular weight plastic, or an aluminum brace into the spar frame. We had to tap the UHMW plastic in with a sledge hammer to get it to go all the way down the spar, but it's just about the difference between a roughly 2x4 thin sheet metal box and a solid metal box the length of the quad. I know I'm more at peace about the Rene now.

 

I'd have to agree- I ride with a bunch of different atv's- I always compare components between the can-am, polaris and the four large Japanese makers. One thing that is clearly visible is the difference in size between the popo and outty drive shafts, cv's and tube gage compared to the Asian atv's. Both the stock popo & can-am drive shafts & cv's are 35-40% thicker then all of the stock Asian models- I've checked them all.
I think can-am is on the right track with their spar technology but it really needs a little redesigning in some areas- hey, it took many hours of redesigning the airplane before it would fly, can-am will get there. What we need is an atv that combines the sturdy chassis of the polaris and the agility of the can-am's spar engineering.

How long until we start seeing composite frames???

 

Just to throw in a honest argument about the frame on ATV's and this is NOT to quote the slang of a 6yo kid but "Sometimes it not the size that matter but how you use it" (bet you never heard that one before hu??? LOL) In other words things can be made smaller and hold up just as well, you just need to know where to and where not to put in reinforcements while in the design studios. A great example of this is look at a hydro-formed frame on a 2010 Dodge Ram 2500 VS a ladder type frame found on a 2010 Ford F250 similar strengths in a frame design but one is a whole lot smaller physically in size! The types of metals used makes a big difference in physical strength!

 

this is exactly the type of engineering behind a sky scraper- it's all about the secondary bracing...

 

When they invent a Utility ATV or farm tractor that is under 500lbs don't buy it. Everyone says , " That ATV is is to heavy" Than buy a sport ATV because only lots of steel makes ATVs heavy and thats a good thing sometimes..

 

From the pictures, it does not appear to have been rolled. Handlebars, etc. still good. It looks more like it took a head-on right on the left front tire. I don't want to start anything here, but when one of the the traditional framed quads takes a hit and get bent/broken, it is normal. When an Outlander/Renegade takes a good hit, it is the "weak" frame.

 

the point I was trying to make is that the traditional tubular chassis is able to withstand a bit more of a thump without causing such catastrophic damage to the vehicle. I'm far from a structural engineer but I would guess anytime you have a chassis & secondary bracing built with steel tube stock, it's a stronger chassis.
The can-am uses all aluminum bracing and a square steel "spine" to reduce weight, whereas other atv's use tube steel (structurally stronger then square stock) and all steel secondary bracing. This feature allows other atv's to take a hard hit with minimal (or less then) damage then the same hit to a can-am.

But the reason why can-am is a violent machine to be reckoned with on any trail is because of it's nimbleness and instant white-knuckle acceleration, and you ain't getting that with an "all steel" chassis unless you install a monstrous heavy powerplant.

I'm not getting down on Can-Am, just pointing out an obvious flaw- every atv has'em!

 

you're correct- the owner emailed me back- said he bought it that way. he was going to fix it. Said he thinks the previous owner hit a tree-

Someone told him that all it needs is a frame straightener, but that wouldn't fix the stretched metal where there would be a huge weak spot- IMO, it would need to be cut and welded with some secondary bracing to give that metal some strength.

I'm thinking about welding up maybe 20lbs of 1/4" flat stock down the frame on my 650 max- pretty much make it bullet proof- I'm not so concerned about the extra weight, I only weigh 175-180 (after a few beers )

 

My experience with outty frames have been that they're just as strong as they need to be. No more, no less.

The problems come in when that spar frame becomes dinged, dented, corroded or otherwise tweaked. Once you put a flaw in that spar it will want to fail at that point and there isn't much extra margin built in to take that sort of stress. It's like a beer can, cardboard tube etc. If it is in a pristine state it can take enormous amounts of force when applied evenly and in a manner and direction that it is designed to accept. It is more than strong enough. You put a dent in that same beer can or put a crease in that cardboard tube and its strength is reduced dramatically and it is going to fail at that point of damage.

Cover it with skidplates, check it for corrosion, dings, dents and damage and you should be fine. Just be aware that you're making a calculated trade-off with weight vs. strength and margins for damage. This doesn't make the outty bad or weak, it's just the compromise you make for having a rocket fast, wonderfully nimble machine, fun machine.