Chill out man...

I believe What Brpbear was getting at, was BRP was the first to completly design a chassis for 2 people, not just simply put a 2nd seat on a 1 person vehicle. many other ATV's had 2 seats before BRP. AC being one of them, but AC did not completly design a frame and chassis from the ground up with 2 people in mind. BRP was the first to do this.
On the AC, the passenger simply sits where the rear cargo rack should be. This is neither innovative nor a ground up design. it is simply using what you already have to create a 2 person vehicle. (that is good, I;m not knocking AC, using what you have is good because it is known to work.)
However, In my biased opinion AC's 2 seaters are single seater conversions. Polaris so far in my opinion is the only other company to have completly desiged an ATV from the ground up for 2 people. with their X2. and they only have that for 2006. BRP was there in 2003, 3 years earlier.

 

Mattinthehat, the TRV's length, wheelbase (8 inches longer than standard), shock length, shock travel, and ground clearance specs, in combination, are all unique in Arctic Cat's lineup since it was first built in 2003. The only other quad that shares the extended wheelbase in the AC line-up is the TBX, which does not share the same shock/ground clearance specs. I'm not sure how that doesn't meet your criteria for "built from the ground up for two people", (maybe because the long chassi is shared be the TBX and TRV?) but it certainly is completely inaccurate to say "on the AC, the passenger simply sits where the rear cargo rack should be".
I'm curious, other than wheelbase and shocks (I'm assuming the shocks are different), are there any other major differences in the Can Am 2-up and the standard machine?

 

Man this is a long thread, and i had to go back and forth the see what the original post was all about ! But i think and correct me if i'm wrong , the question was whitch was best can am or ac ! And that they weren't deep mud and water fan, just rock's and trail nothing about drag racing and what was the fastest atv ! I don't think you would do much drag racing on rock's or most trail's for that matter; just to dangerous for this kind of riding !!! So i would say ride both quad's you're looking at, then choose you one you like best plain and simple.............................williebee

 

The single brake is on the left so you hold the brake and shift with the right hand. So if you were on a hill and needed to back up you could hold brake and shift without the quad moving.

 

Exactly. when I sit in the passenger seat on the Artic Cat I feel like the passenger seat was an after thought. Looking at the AC I look at it and say. "It's a TBX with a seat on it". just my opinion.
and out of curiosity, if it is innacurate to say "the rear seat is not where the rear cargo rack should be", where is the rear cargo rack? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

My guess is, Mattinthehat, that AC's engineers decided not to put a small rack in the back simply to give the passenger more room. That would just be a difference in philosophy, and a very minor one at that. What's interesting is how similar these 2-ups are in their differences from the standard models. Both have stretched the weelbase exactly 8 inches over the standard model, Can Am at 59 inches, and Cat at 58, and as a result the overall length is only 1 inch different, 94 to 93 inches.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't know how you can look at the specs, and the obvious differences in the TRV and all other AC quads, and still make the claim that you do.
Oh well, it's your opinion and I respect that.
One thing is for sure, if I was in the market for a 2-up, I would feel good about either one.
Dottie, if you are still listening after all this mess, just buy one, you're going to be happy either way.
Paul

 

i have two trv's and if you look at my pics you can see the back seat was not an afterthought it is by far more comfortable than a pol, or the bomb. the reason there is no back rack is the pass sits directly over the rear tires for a more smooth and stable ride now if you dont understand gravity heres my take, your going up a hill and your on a two up bike if i had my wieght behind the back wheels or extra wieght behind them i would be very tippy or front end light, now the ? was what would be better ac/bomb for his type of riding he would need to add a few things to the bomb to make it HIS riding style worthy(skid plates,new racks,and mabey tires ) the trv comes with a bigger front rack but you would need to buy a back rack (289.00) but this rack is huge if he wants to pull a trailor ac has a 2" recever bomb nothing. now if you are going to the drags,dunes desert or plan to spend a long day DRIVING the atv bomb front ends are lighter and easyer to turn. I bought the 3rd trv in salt lake city (2003) and i have never had a problem with it so i bought another in 2006 new things on the 2006 include a hydralic rear brake and an alumanim resevor for all of them better mrp racks a recever hitch and a THREE year warranty plus the cost was $7800.00 otd and another big deal is i can use more than artic cat parts, suzuki built my motor so alot of there stuff works on mine. some people on here just HATE artic cats and have been baned from that site because there coments, so remember you will love whatever you get and stand up for it because that is what YOU got.

 

yup. Not bashing the AC. it is a decent bike. I just don't feel it's the bike for me in 2up. is all. the most important thing is to pick the bike you like.

 

Good point about sitting directly over the rear wheel instead of behind. WAY SAFER. guess what is even SAFER then directly over the rear wheel.... Ahead of the rear wheel. Bomb 2 up puts the passenger just ahead of the center of the rear wheel hub. they are over the front portion of the rear wheel. Just thought I would point that out. It's safer.

 

but then they put a small rack on the back defeting the purpose, that is just one reason AC dident do it. but i will ride with whoever no matter what they ride!