You should ask yourself that question. After all you are the one that brought it up. Go back and read this thread. Someone said you were a know-it-all, and that you probably predicted that Polaris would be were they were today back in '85. I did not see that post refer to Polaris making a Sport quad. Your response was "I'm sorry, maybe I didn't read your post right, but were you trying to say that Polaris makes a sport quad??? PFFT, YEAH RIGHT!! Good one! Haha, I'll be laughing about that for weeks."
I did not see that post refer to Polaris making a Sport quad. It was merely a sacastic comment. So again, you are the one that brought up Polaris sport quads.

 

3TV, your post is excellent. But you forgot to mention the strength of a solid compared to IRS. Real trucks have solid axles due to the fact they can carry a lot of weight. The solid will withstand this much better then IRS.

 

3TV

Please tell me more about Jeep going to IFS. I hope this is not true. If so they will making a big mistake, at least in my mind.
Randy

 

"It looks like the guys with the IRS sport quad don't know anything."

I thought he was talking about the Polaris sport quad in this line, since he mentioned Polaris before that. I guess he was talking about the 'guys' in the article that made the IRS quad, sorry, misinterpretation on my part.

But I still think that the Polaris Scrambler is in a class of it's own. I don't separate 'sport' and 'high-performance' quads, to me they are the same class, there are just some sport quads that are faster than others. The scrambler doesn't fit because it's MUCH heavier and because it's available in 4wd, but again that's just my oppinion. In my mind the Scrambler is like the Dodge dakota; it's an in-between class. It's bigger than your average mid-size pickup (S10, Ranger), yet smaller than the full-sizes, yet they still insist on comparing it to the mid-sizes. Gettin way off topic now.

For railing the corners, I think the solid-axle sport quads will always be better than the IRS quads. For 4x4 off-roading, IRS is obviously better at keeping all four tires on the ground.

 

Lurch has a point. Plus a solid axle pick-up, in theory, should be more stable with a full load at high speeds. Just imagine the left side of your pickup with a few thousand pounds of metal in it as compared to the right side empty. Wouln't that be a bit "lopsided" in lamens terms?

 

Just keep on riding your rubipoop skunky I thought of your post yesterday as I watched my buddy on his 400 honda holding his back as we went up a rocky place about 4 miles long. The Honda was bouncing so bad both wheels were coming completely off the ground. Honda is so far behind it isn't funny, ask yourself what has honda changed on there bikes in the last 10 years besides the graphics and you have the answer. People like you were crying years ago how dum water cooling was on Polaris bikes...so now guess what, Honda puts it on the rubicon, well figure that, if Honda don't wake up and start putting more of a variety on there bikes they are going to find themselves in 2nd place. And the reason they don't give you more variety is so they can put more money in there pockets. Some people say it is a weight issue that is nothing but bull I got news for you after 500 lbs you can't tell me you can really tell the difference. I really think the Rubicon is a big disappointment, think of what Honda could have done with the Rubicon with the additions of IRS, disc brakes, 2 to 4 wheel drive switch, got rid of that ancient 4 wheel drive system they keep improving, that still does the same old thing one tire pulls, one tire spins...heck even the honda owners are complaining of being mislead.
So you ended up with a new trans after a 10 year wait of changeing nothing but the decals every year big deal...and yes it is reliable but very boring...haven't you ever heard that variety is the spice of life and familiarity breeds contempt. Polaris is on its way to #1 because it is making a bike for each and every different person and there riding styles. Some like IRS some don't...so buy a magnum etc. etc. etc. So what does Honda offer, it is you either ride this or go buy something else. Believe it or not I really like a Honda product but they must have somebody like the old man Henry Ford running the organization...if you don't know the story the old man Henry Ford who was the originator of the Ford motor company would not let the company subside to change of more modern engineering. He was an old f*rt that tried to produce the same old product because it was so reliable and besides he was probably making a h#ll of a lot of money from not changeing things. Thus now you have the big 3 instead of the big 1 being Ford. Ford never made a come back till the old f#rt resigned and they got back in the race when his son took over things who was no brain child but did do some catching up with chevrolet and Chrysler. So does this story sound familiar, Seems to me Honda needs to get some young blood in there organization instead of some old nerd who is trying to reinvent the wheel. Let Honda give me the choices Polaris does and I will sell my Sportsman tomorrow...but I will not be holding my breath...I shall now get down off my soap box thank you for your time and consideration you will now be returned to your regularly scheduled program...say good night skunky

 

ATVing, prepare to be flamed (not by me of course)

 

Xplor - It's funny you point your finger and call everyone ignorant, then show that you don't even really understand the subject at hand..

Don't confuse a live axle (like what a truck has) with an axle and swingarm setup. A truck with a lopsided load would react in somewhat the same manner regardless of independent rear suspenson or a live axle.

Most of the folks here seem to not really understand the basic concepts at work here. Let me start by saying that independent rear suspension (from here out referred to as IRS), is not "new" nor "innovative" - it has been in use for decades. I am not against IRS, I love it on my Corvette, Celica, and Lexus, and think that all cars should be equipped with it as well as 4 wheel disc brakes. BUT..... In my eyes it has no place on a lightweight, well suspended quad that is going to be ridden hard in many conditions. Maybe a purpose built, extremely wide race machine like the one featured here on ATVconnection, but not on an everyday quad that cannot be that wide.

Body roll can simply not be controlled without sacrificing the independent action (what do you think a sway bar does?). Also as a few pointed out, IRS on a car cannot be compared to a quad. First off, look at your width vs CG on both types of vehicles. When was the last time you saw a driver of a car or desert race truck use body english to affect his corner? That's how close to the edge we live on a quad - throw in the added element of IRS (explained later) and the rider may find himself in some pretty hairy situations. Next look at the intended use of each vehicle. Cars are built to make a compromise comfort vs cornering performance. All cars exhibit body roll, even a Corvette with it's extremely low center of gravity, huge sway bars, and firm suspension, this negatively affects handling. Now amplify this all on a high center of gravity vehicle such as a quad. A swingarm and axle setup on a car would have to be extremely heavy to survive the extreme twisting force a heavy bodied car would exert on it. It's rigidity would sacrifice frame integrity as well - if it were strong enough to survive the twisting forces, it would then transfer them to the frame. It would also sacrifice traction in typical automotive environments - when was the last time you wanted the rear end to "come around" on a paved corner in your Vette? Did any of you see the Yamaha videos of the Raptor coming around corners pulling one front tire off the ground? How much worse would that be with a little body roll and frame transfer thrown in? How would that affect steering (also considering your rear end would be getting more traction)?

Think about landing a big jump on one rear tire, either the shocks would have to be extremely stiff, able to soak up a full hit each on it's own, or you would bottom miserably, probably damaging your suspension as well as yourself - here the swingarm setup is an advantage, both tires are coupled, the situation will correct itself (unless you were in a lot of trouble anyway). Powersliding - currently your outside tire cannot collapse under you if you go thru a little bump, it should float thru with the inside tire following - on an IRS setup, the outside tire would attempt to soak it up, upset chassis balance, roll to the outside, and probably hi-side the rider.

All in all, IRS, if well designed should work great on a utility machine (like racks or a shaft drive), that is ridden comparatively slowly on trails where ride quality, traction, and articulation is far more important than cornering and jumping performance (which have never been top importance items on utility machines). But on a sport machine, under typical usage IRS would cause some very significant problems....

 

Understood. I can see what you mean. I can respect your opinion. (By the way, I feel the same way about the Dakota).
But I still disagree with the class the Scram is in. I still think it is a sport. But I am different then you, so that is all that matters. We both have opinions. Glad that this was a fairly good arguement. It did not get out of hand like I have see on this site before.

 

ah shucks I am a big boy I can take it just voiceing what was on my mind...and I really wasn't trying to start a honda polaris war...I just wish Honda made a lot more bikes to chose from...you know what a big Polaris lover I am and I hate to admit it but if the Rubicon had everything my Sportsman does with the additional trans it would d#m near be the perfect quad.