I have to admit this is a very good and logical argument I hadn't though about.

However, what I recently realised, is that Solid axle really act as a barrier in the mud and snow in which the fully independant suspension Quad might outperform.

This argument combine with the ones you mentioned let me believe that solid axle might be better for work and IRS might be better for mud and snow. Does that make sense?

 

Absolutely right Woodlander

 

LOL.. Seems that every other high performance 4 wheeled vehicle in the world has embraced IRS except quads. LOL.. Everyone said the same thing about IRS in the UTEs when it first came out. Furthermore, just because the Outlaw is heavy does not mean that every IRS sports quad will be heavy. Come on guys.. use some imagination!! And no way is cost a prohibiting factor. Just look at the cost of high performance parts and you will be convinced of that!! As far as weight.. get rid of that heavy **** rear axle and swing arm in a sports quad an replace it with a couple of small a-arms with light weight half shafts. We are going to see many more IRS sports quads!! The fundamental reason is because of the unsprung weight. The drive tires are kept in contact with the ground much more effectively than a solid axle. LOL.. if you think that a straight axle is so great.. replace your font end with one!! Maybe you will save some weight. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
Bryce

 

For the aggressive ride, I'd take my Raptor, for cush, I'd take the IRS, just depends on how you feel that particular day.

 

to a point that is correct, but if the IRS machine is 150 or more lbs heavier, it sinks deeper (or break through the base more) than the lighter SRA machine. This is from experience having to cut trips short or go arounds because an IRS machine in the group was breaking through the base and sinking to the skid plate. This is where that theory 'gets stuck' in the reality.

Be interesting to see how the King Quad would do as it is relatively light compared to most of the other IRS machines out there.

 

Well, Polaris ATV's seem to be heavier than others, but most utility ATV's are in the 550 to 610lbs category, whether SRA or IRS. For example, the Honda Rubicon (SRA) weighs 600 lbs and the Yamaha Grizzly 660 (IRS) also weighs 600 lbs. so does the Suzuki KingQuad 700 (IRS) and the Suzuki Vinson 500 (SRA)...

Are you comparing IRS (mostly utility) with sport quad (mostly SRA) to see such a big difference in weight (150lbs)?

 

I didn't want to mention a certain brand as being heavy, we all know how sensitive some can be over weight[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] The AC's are heavy too.

I'm just saying that IRS does not automatically mean you can handle all terrain easier than SRA. There are some disadvantages to IRS such as when ridden aggressively or side hilling as they feel tall and tippy, and even with sway bars they have a lot of rollover in corners, and the extra weight from all the additional drive-line and suspension parts - and maintenance.

If IRS is on a machine that's 80lbs heavier on a sport quad or 150lbs on a Ute, it won't have a beneficial effect all the time. It may ride better, but it doesn't absolutley mean you are going more places easier and faster.

I found out long ago that ATVs are not high performance machines. You can have an ATV with higher performance than another, but you can go faster everywhere quads go with a different type of vehicle - whether a motorcycle, snowmobile, car, truck, etc. The first ATV (32nd overall TRX450 (with an SRA)) finished 4 hours behind the 2004 Baja 1000 winner (who was riding a XR650 tank). IRS isn't going to make up that kind of difference.

So for now, IRS on an ATV mostly results in a better ride - with some other fringe benefits in certain conditions such as GC - I haven't see handling as one of them.

 

I think when you talk about the difference betwen IRS and SRA, you have to seperate what you can do with these two technologies and what is done in practice. The reason that IRS utes seem more tippy is because the clearance under the machine and therfore the center of gravity is higher. If you make an IRS machine at the same height and clearance as an SRA, you will find the handling much superior.
Bryce

 

yes, or do you mean what is done in reality?

or in reality, they are more tippy, not seem more tippy?

what about the body roll? I thought body roll was an undesireable transfer of weight that had an adverse effect on handling?

and if you get rid of the roll aren't you compromising the ride by making it stiffer than an SRA to prevent the roll? Do you think that's good on an ATV?

 

My SRA prairie 400 is higher than an AC 400 I rode last weekend. The AC 400 is not as stable on side hills as my taller SRA machine. My swingarm is not capable of moving in a twisting motion, as pointed out earlier in this thread, so it doesnt lean as hard on hills. So an even height will not make that much difference in the way the suspension reacts to weight transfer.