ATVing -
Polaris makes big, heavy, easy to ride automatic quads that appeal to a lot of folks that don't want or don't know how to properly operate manual tranmissions & aren't concerned with overall performance (in the sport category). They ABSOLUTELY do not make a machine for everyone as you suggest. They make a whole lot of various utility machines & 2 utility machines disguised in more sporty machine clothing. You make a good point about variety, then go on put down the machines that aren't like yours.

All the bikes have their good points and bad, so unless you have something constructive to add to this thread..... You get the point.

 

Atving: I repect your opinion, but i was never one against Water Cooling on any ATV. I have however stated that there are advantages to both set ups. Same goes for Solid axle vs IRS. Even if for instance jeep goes to a IRS, I would almost bet the YJ doen't. For one reason, Off - Roading!! Anyway, i never said IRS sucked off -road. I have simply stated that you SP500 owners need to get off riping Honda owners products due to a Solid axle and Drum brakes. IF that is your case for me to own a Polaris that is sad. So keep believing what you want, but next year when Polaris comes out with one of there new Technological rubber band machines buy one again. Besides when you asked why doesn't Polaris replace their Rubber band tranny for a real one you replied To us all like, Why change what isn't broken and performs well. IF that is true then Polaris is making moeny like Henry Ford off you!! Saling you OLD tranny technology for new technology prices. Congrats!!!

 

I agree with you Alaska, there are advantages to IRS and solid, as well as liquid and air cooled.

But I disagree with your comment about the "rubber band" tranny being out dated. Why does every manufacture use it? Except for Honda, which did use it at one time too. Does this make Honda the only advance manufacturer out there? I think not. Every snowmobile uses it, and there are MANY cars that have just started useing it over seas. If it is behind the times, then why would auto manufaturer like Nissan just start useing recently? And why would Ford start tests on a Taurus with the CVT tranny? I too say don't fix what ain't broke. The CVT is a very strong, and very tunable tranny. But it is not for everyone. Which is one reason why Honda release a different type. But there again, that one is not for everyone either.

 

The rubicon is especially not for people like me who don't have $7,000 to spend on an ATV...

 

Lurch77: Thanks for a well thought out post. I will correct myself. The Polaris Tranny is NOT out dated. But it ticks me off when you all come over here and say drum, brakes and solid axles are. The point i have been making the whole time is that all of these types of suspension and tranny's have there good and bad points. IT just seems that they are only good points when there on a Polaris and Bad when there on a Honda. Or if Honda wins a shootout it is because they bought there way to the top, but if Polaris wins it is earned win. Lets face it though, no matter what Brand you have they all are great, just in each others owners mind if any. That may be all that matters anyway. Happy atving

 

Although I prefer Polaris, I do not rule out other brands. I do get irritated when someone says one brand is better. Even if it is a Polaris guy. I think almost all machines are equal to a certain degree. There are things Polaris does better, and there are things Honda does better.
For me, Polaris covers more then my needs. (And does it well) But if I was miles from the nearest dealer, or did not have much time, I personally would consider the Honda. Even the anti-Honda guys cannot dispute Honda reliability record. Polaris is a bit different. They had some reliability problems years ago. But I belive they are just as reliable as any others now, PROVIDED you keep a strict maintanence schedule.
Now, lets just get out and RIDE!

 

It would easier to put the Ruby tranny on the SP,less things to switch over for that perfect quad.

 

86atc250r...

Don't get me wrong. I was not calling everybody ignorant. Not in the least bit. I was just stating, in response to some later posts in this thread, that keeping an open mind on all different options and technologies is good for us all. Some people just see things one way, thats the only way they say. As for the ignorance thing...it was in response to some comments about classifying sport quads and some saying what is good and what aint.

Of coarse you give up a lot of handling on an IRS quad but then again, it is not intended for an all-out sports quad. Maybe in the future...

 

That's Great, I'd love to see your video! I assume you are the guy that built this race quad?

Please re-read my post. I didn't call anyone ignorant, I just noted that the person that did, didn't understand that a live axle in an automotive application does not work like an axle and swingarm on an ATV. I just also noted that it would not work well on a stock height, and width sport quad. I also noted that it probably would work well on a purpose built MX quad that is a lot wider and lower than the typical stock machine (the whole width vs CG thing).

Anything can be done if a person has their mind set to it. I'm sure you have run into a lot of compromises you have had to made in your designs as well. I'm just noting that the oem's will not go to the same lenghts as you to make this work properly for the demands of a sport quad, heck, they won't even give us really descent suspension although it wouldn't cost them much in mass production.

I wouldn't be afraid to ride your machine being 5" wider than stock with custom suspension, etc... I would be afraid to ride a stock width machine as hard I as ride mine with an IRS setup, I get enough frame twist and body roll with my axle/swingarm setup.

How much more english does your bike take in a corner vs a comparative +5" wide race quad? (I am not being facetious).

I am more interested in a little debate of the pros and cons of this setup than namecalling.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a harda$$, but I don't think you'll blame me when I say 'I'll believe it when I ride it'.

Also, my point in it being 5" wider than stock was simply that any quad with a +5" axle will handle significantly better than stock, and probably better than the IRS quad as well.