IRS vs SRA
Jan 20, 2015 | 09:33 PM
#21
Thread Starter
|
Trailblazer
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Utah
The prairie is spec'd at 605 DRY. Add 5 gallons of fuel, a battery, coolant and oil and I'd say it would be about the same if not a little bit heavier than the Rincon and grizz. In the sport quad world, The kawi kfx700 was heavier than the 700xx (by 50 pounds) despite the SRA vs IRS.
I only bring up brand reliability because if one is going to consider cost of ownership, repair and maintenance then they may as well consider everything - not just what's convenient to bring up. Why would you need 2 cylinders, 2 pistons, 2 cams, 2 carbs and 8 valves anyway? Only more to go wrong right? Not to mention that all that weight sits up high, a lot higher than rear suspension components.
I have a few Atvs with both types of rear end so I don't think I am biased on this subject but, maybe you are?
I only bring up brand reliability because if one is going to consider cost of ownership, repair and maintenance then they may as well consider everything - not just what's convenient to bring up. Why would you need 2 cylinders, 2 pistons, 2 cams, 2 carbs and 8 valves anyway? Only more to go wrong right? Not to mention that all that weight sits up high, a lot higher than rear suspension components.
I have a few Atvs with both types of rear end so I don't think I am biased on this subject but, maybe you are?
You are right, the Kawie is listed dry. Never seen a wet weight listed for it. Your Rinny is also listed dry. The Grizz is listed only wet at 648. So you can speculate all you want on the real world weights and how they compare. They are all going to be pretty close. All I can tell you is my P700 won't tip my neighbor's tilt bed trailer until it gets a few inches further forward than his stock Grizz. My real point was that an SRA is lighter than your typical steel, double a arm rear suspension found on any utility atv simply because of lighter material and fewer parts. In other words, my three SRA equipped atv's are lighter than comparable class IRS models.
Your comparison of the KFX700 and the TRX 700 is almost as bad as the comparison of atv's to dune buggies. The KFX is/was a very unique sport quad and built totally different than a TRX! It's a cvt tranny, shaft driven sport quad. The TRX is a chain drive, manual. Trying to say that the TRX was 50 lbs lighter totally and exclusively due to the rear suspension is so laughable that I can't assume you're serious!
And then you ask why have a twin cylinder engine!??! Well, I know you're a Rinny rider so maybe this is something you'll never understand no matter how much others try to educate you, but c'mon! Why NOT have a twin? Because you like underpowered, boring machines? And how can you speculate they cost more to operate or maintain when you've obviously never had one? And don't even try to tell me that legions of RED riders wouldn't instantly run down to their dealers and pre-order a new Rubicon 750 vtwin if it was announced! The dealer would have to fight you guys off with a stick.
And no, twins don't make "weight sit up high". As I've already stated, your Rinny, and the Grizz have higher centers of gravity. If you'd ever had all three machines on an off-camber hill like I have, you would feel this fact immediately. Or you can look it up if you prefer.
Biases, nope. Like them both. But my engineering background tells me which is simpler, stronger, and more stable. It's not bias, it's math.
Well, that's enough time in the sandbox for me.....
Get out and ride and enjoy what you've got.
Jan 20, 2015 | 09:47 PM
#22
Thread Starter
|
Trailblazer
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Utah
Sounds like you and I are cut from the same cloth. I use to rock a well set up 400ex. I loved the sra and having the ability to drift through every corner.
IMHO SRA vs IRS is more about riding style. The trick with getting a sra quad places was nothing but momentum and the amount of risk you were willing to take. Obviously with a sra quad the faster you go the smother the ride. So mach 1 on every trail was the norm.
Now I have sp 500. I like the IRS even tho it feels like a marshmallow in the corners. It did take some getting use to. I felt like I had to learn to ride all over again.
If you know how to ride both set ups are more than capable and everything just boils down to preference.
For riding in the Moab I would hands down take a SRA quad. When riding they feel much more stable and for lack of better words connected to the ground. If one of your tires came off the ground, even for a split second you could immediately feel it. You could also feel what the terrain was like. Every little pebble you rode over was felt. With the irs you dont feel the size of the rocks that you ride over. In technical places like off cambers and when 3 wheeling that disconnected feeling with the IRS makes it harder to find your limits.
IMHO SRA vs IRS is more about riding style. The trick with getting a sra quad places was nothing but momentum and the amount of risk you were willing to take. Obviously with a sra quad the faster you go the smother the ride. So mach 1 on every trail was the norm.
Now I have sp 500. I like the IRS even tho it feels like a marshmallow in the corners. It did take some getting use to. I felt like I had to learn to ride all over again.
If you know how to ride both set ups are more than capable and everything just boils down to preference.
For riding in the Moab I would hands down take a SRA quad. When riding they feel much more stable and for lack of better words connected to the ground. If one of your tires came off the ground, even for a split second you could immediately feel it. You could also feel what the terrain was like. Every little pebble you rode over was felt. With the irs you dont feel the size of the rocks that you ride over. In technical places like off cambers and when 3 wheeling that disconnected feeling with the IRS makes it harder to find your limits.
Thanks Jgar for your post. My findings are very similar to your's. It's nice to see someone here who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid.
Jan 21, 2015 | 12:22 AM
#23
Pro Rider
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Good grief, I love Honda Rinny riders....
You are right, the Kawie is listed dry. Never seen a wet weight listed for it. Your Rinny is also listed dry. The Grizz is listed only wet at 648. So you can speculate all you want on the real world weights and how they compare. They are all going to be pretty close. All I can tell you is my P700 won't tip my neighbor's tilt bed trailer until it gets a few inches further forward than his stock Grizz. My real point was that an SRA is lighter than your typical steel, double a arm rear suspension found on any utility atv simply because of lighter material and fewer parts. In other words, my three SRA equipped atv's are lighter than comparable class IRS models.
Your comparison of the KFX700 and the TRX 700 is almost as bad as the comparison of atv's to dune buggies. The KFX is/was a very unique sport quad and built totally different than a TRX! Trying to say that the TRX was lighter totally and exclusively due to the rear suspension is so laughable that I can't assume you're serious!
And then you ask why have a twin cylinder engine!??! Well, I know you're a Rinny rider so maybe this is something you'll never understand no matter how much others try to educate you, but c'mon! Why NOT have a twin? Because you like underpowered, boring machines? And how can you speculate they cost more to operate or maintain when you've obviously never had one?
And no, they don't make "weight sit up high". As I've already stated, your Rinny, and the Grizz have higher centers of gravity. If you'd ever had all three machines on an off-camber hill like I have, you would feel this fact immediately. Or you can look it up if you prefer.
Biases, nope. Like them both. But my engineering background tells me which is simpler, stronger, and more stable. It's not bias, it's math.
Well, that's enough time in the sandbox for me.....
Get out and ride and enjoy what you've got.
You are right, the Kawie is listed dry. Never seen a wet weight listed for it. Your Rinny is also listed dry. The Grizz is listed only wet at 648. So you can speculate all you want on the real world weights and how they compare. They are all going to be pretty close. All I can tell you is my P700 won't tip my neighbor's tilt bed trailer until it gets a few inches further forward than his stock Grizz. My real point was that an SRA is lighter than your typical steel, double a arm rear suspension found on any utility atv simply because of lighter material and fewer parts. In other words, my three SRA equipped atv's are lighter than comparable class IRS models.
Your comparison of the KFX700 and the TRX 700 is almost as bad as the comparison of atv's to dune buggies. The KFX is/was a very unique sport quad and built totally different than a TRX! Trying to say that the TRX was lighter totally and exclusively due to the rear suspension is so laughable that I can't assume you're serious!
And then you ask why have a twin cylinder engine!??! Well, I know you're a Rinny rider so maybe this is something you'll never understand no matter how much others try to educate you, but c'mon! Why NOT have a twin? Because you like underpowered, boring machines? And how can you speculate they cost more to operate or maintain when you've obviously never had one?
And no, they don't make "weight sit up high". As I've already stated, your Rinny, and the Grizz have higher centers of gravity. If you'd ever had all three machines on an off-camber hill like I have, you would feel this fact immediately. Or you can look it up if you prefer.
Biases, nope. Like them both. But my engineering background tells me which is simpler, stronger, and more stable. It's not bias, it's math.
Well, that's enough time in the sandbox for me.....
Get out and ride and enjoy what you've got.
I never compared atvs to dune Buggys, but why is the KFX/700xx argument not credible? Are they not big bore sport atvs with equal sized engines that competed against each other for sales? I'm not saying that an IRS is lighter, Just pointing out real world examples where a manufacturer was able to work around the weight difference and still make a lighter, faster and all around better handling atv. The DS650 is another in class ATV that the xx is lighter than despite the IRS vs SRA. The DS is chain driven and a 5 speed manual.
The v-twin analogy was sarcastic, but obviously that went right past you. My point is that if your going to say that IRS is bad because it adds weight, complexity and moving parts then the same can be said about a v-twin engine and lots of new technology in general. I happen to have 2 v-twin ATVs, so I have nothing against them, just pointing out the truth.
heres my garage in its current state. I'm out every chance I get on something and get lot of time to compare them. lots more than a "boring" Rincon right?
[IMG]
[/IMG][IMG]
[/IMG]You did say that you had IRS atvs prior to the 20 year old yamahas and 03 prairie right? What model(s) were they? Cant imagine they were made too recently, I think you'd be surprised if you gave a newer machine a chance
Jan 21, 2015 | 08:09 AM
#24
Extreme Pro Rider
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,805
Likes: 0
Sorry to say this but you're wrong about the SRA brakes. I have two SRA Yamaha Wolverines (years before they went sport model) and they both have rear disc brakes. My Kawasaki Prairie 700 SRA has a sealed wet brake which just happens to be the best rear brake in the industry. Thus it was copied by many other makers and utilized in both IRS and SRA designs. It lasts for tens of thousands of miles, no maintenance required other than oil once a year, doesn't fade, doesn't get junk in it, and doesn't have brake line hanging down near the wheel. Absolutely brilliant design.
Also, the Kawie rear swing arm is made of aluminum and weighs significantly less than any IRS steel a-arm design. Plus it's self contained, and centralized for balance. Mechanically speaking, it's MUCH more advanced than any IRS. (Notice I said "advanced", not "complicated". There is a difference.)
Also, the Kawie rear swing arm is made of aluminum and weighs significantly less than any IRS steel a-arm design. Plus it's self contained, and centralized for balance. Mechanically speaking, it's MUCH more advanced than any IRS. (Notice I said "advanced", not "complicated". There is a difference.)
There is no high end larger 4x4 with a SRA anymore even if you wanted one. since the Foreman and Rubicon moved to IRS. Even the 420 Rancher has a IRS version now.
Kawasaki has no SRA 4x4 since 2013. The BF 650 is long gone, so the IRS vs SRA is almost pointless today.
SRA in Sports ATV are find since ground clearance and a smooth ride over rough trails is not high up there for them.
I agree with you on the oil bathed rear disk ,my 350 Grizzly has it as well but come pad change time it must be a chore to get at.
Jan 21, 2015 | 08:33 AM
#25
Extreme Pro Rider
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,805
Likes: 0
Just to get back to weigh ,if weigh even maters on 4x4 since may people add weigh for more traction .
The IRS 750 BF is only 35lbs more then the now discontinued SRA 650 BF 2013 Kawasaki Brute Force® 750 4x4i ATVs and at 650lbs the 650 was no light weight.
Comparing a 700xx to a 4wd is pointless ,there is no light weight 4wd after the 350 Wolverine 4x4 was discontinued in 2005. 2005 Yamaha Wolverine 4X4 ATVs but it was a IRS.
The IRS 750 BF is only 35lbs more then the now discontinued SRA 650 BF 2013 Kawasaki Brute Force® 750 4x4i ATVs and at 650lbs the 650 was no light weight.
Comparing a 700xx to a 4wd is pointless ,there is no light weight 4wd after the 350 Wolverine 4x4 was discontinued in 2005. 2005 Yamaha Wolverine 4X4 ATVs but it was a IRS.
Jan 21, 2015 | 10:18 AM
#26
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,196
Likes: 55
Just to get back to weigh ,if weigh even maters on 4x4 since may people add weigh for more traction .
The IRS 750 BF is only 35lbs more then the now discontinued SRA 650 BF 2013 Kawasaki Brute Force® 750 4x4i ATVs and at 650lbs the 650 was no light weight.
Comparing a 700xx to a 4wd is pointless ,there is no light weight 4wd after the 350 Wolverine 4x4 was discontinued in 2005. 2005 Yamaha Wolverine 4X4 ATVs but it was a IRS.
The IRS 750 BF is only 35lbs more then the now discontinued SRA 650 BF 2013 Kawasaki Brute Force® 750 4x4i ATVs and at 650lbs the 650 was no light weight.
Comparing a 700xx to a 4wd is pointless ,there is no light weight 4wd after the 350 Wolverine 4x4 was discontinued in 2005. 2005 Yamaha Wolverine 4X4 ATVs but it was a IRS.
Jan 21, 2015 | 10:31 AM
#27
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,196
Likes: 55
I think Polaris came out with IRS in 1996. Suzuki had IRS on the King Quad 300. Not sure about the previous KQ 250. It's getting harder to dredge up old information from my gray matter.
Jan 21, 2015 | 02:27 PM
#28
Extreme Pro Rider
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,805
Likes: 0
I think the 300KQ had the first IRS in the early 90s.
Today the only adult SRA 4x4 Utility I can think of is the 400KQ, 420 Rancher.
I do not even see Yamaha's Big Bear or 350 Grizzly anymore on their list.
Looks like Kawasaki ,Can-AM also have no 4x4 SRA .
AC just has a 300 2wd SRA, Honda looks like it does not make the 250 Recon now.
SRA had two advantages, no CV boots to change and no loss of Ground cleance due to trailer tongue weight.
Jan 21, 2015 | 08:23 PM
#29
Extreme Pro Rider
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,971
Likes: 0
From: Gardner ma.
Correct.
But no one wants a sra 4x4, thats why they dont make them.
Sra vs irs is like pull start vs electric start. Pull start is simpler, more durable, etc. But who wants a pull start on a quad?
Jan 22, 2015 | 11:36 AM
#30
Extreme Pro Rider
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
God forbid he lets the polishing secret out!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,805
Likes: 0
I would not say SRA are stronger. I seen a few rear differentials strip and leak. A IRS has no Rear diff, the drive axles come out of the tranny itself (Atleast on my Sportsman) and they seem to hold up quite well.
Another advantage IRS has is you get two shocks and springs where a most SRA are just a single shock.
I never really look how the IRS on my Yamaha gets its power to the rear axels yet.
I have idea ,lets make a list of 4x4s made today that are SRA ,I'll start.
400KQ
420 Rancher.
Another advantage IRS has is you get two shocks and springs where a most SRA are just a single shock.
I never really look how the IRS on my Yamaha gets its power to the rear axels yet.
I have idea ,lets make a list of 4x4s made today that are SRA ,I'll start.
400KQ
420 Rancher.