The only companies who don't have to obey by this so called weight law is Polaris, Artic cat and bomb. And because of this they all have quads that weigh alot more then 606lbs. So the question I must ask is, if the other co. didn't have to obey this weight law, do you honestly think they would make the same weighted quads they have today. The reason I asked is look at the rubicon, it weighs 600lbs and with a straight axle seems reasonable. Now they are coming out with the Rincon and it also weighs 600lbs. I don't know about you but when you look at a IRS compared to a solid axle, there's alot of extra material in the IRS. So what are they cutting to keep the weight down. The same goes with the 01 Griz to the 02 Griz. Don't want to start a bashing war, but just want honest opinions.

 

I thought the same thing whem I saw the weights of those two hondas weighing in at the same numbers, seems fishy to me. But as far as things they can focus on to cut weight. Tires, as much as 40 pounds can be saved by puttin on the crappy tires. Plastic skidplates instead of metal. less mass on the cast parts such as hubs, smaller diamiter axel shafts and alloy frames all save weight.
These are just the things I could come up with off the top of my head. I am not in a position to say that any of the things mentioned is good or bad except the tires. Although I would like to hear from people who have had problems with their plastic skid plates, are metal ones really needed? Or does plastic do just fine.

 

Why are people soooo obsessed with the wt of utility quads. Last I checked wt = traction. As long as you have plenty of nuts to move the machine at a good clip, and climb obstacles....WHOOOO CARES!!! F=MA for a performance quad, and the more wt you remove, generally the faster you'll go. A torque filled utility quad requires power to work through deep mud, and pull things around. Frankly, I'd rest better having a heavier quad because at least I would know the co. that made it, made it with enough material to hold up. Good Grief.

Ken

 

Conversely: a = m/f

If force is constant, the lighter the weight the better the acceleration. For some people, this is what it's all about.

I like a lighter weight machine so I can move it around while riding. If I'm just sitting on the seat admiring the scenary I don't care how much it weighs. If I want to get on it a little, I want something that will react to smaller changes in weight. I like to steer with the throttle on hills and gravel roads. I want somethig that is a little touchy.

This is my preference. My Magnum 325 didn't have the power to weight ratio to do this. My Prairie does. You might wonder why I didn't get a sport machine. They don't drag telephone polls very well and I can't strap a chainsaw to them very well.

This is one reason someone would care about the weight.

 

GE4x4,

On the Honda issue........I "heard" that weight is one of the reasons that Honda didn't go with the hydrostatic tranny in the Rincon........to handle the power that the 650 will put out, Honda would have to build a big, bulky hydrostatic tranny. Other areas that they cut weight in was using aluminum rear control arms. The japanese manufacturers, in order to cut weight, will use high-yield materials and go to thinner wall thicknesses. This applies to everything from the frame to the driveshafts, and possibly even internal components to the engine and tranny. That is one reason the driveshafts and all can be so much smaller than similar parts on Polaris machines. Polaris seems to prefer mild steel for fabricating everything, and also prefer square tubing for the frames. Manufacturers can actually go to a thinner wall round tubing and obtain the same strength as the square tubing.

For some, weight is not an issue......for others, it is. If 2 machines are identical, but one weighs 100lbs less, and I believe it is just as durable, I would opt for the lighter quad. What keeps popping up in my mind is when I've had a bike come back on me when trying to attempt too steep of a hill. With a light-enough bike, it is likely that you're not going to be hurt as badly.

I do, however, like the sp700. On that bike, I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Sure it is heavy, and lots of people don't like it.........that's fine with me. Each person needs to ride what they think will make them happy. It will be some time before I buy again, but the 700 will most likely be my next purchase.

Back to the weight issue.........I don't believe the big 4 HAVE TO adhere to the weight law.......rather it is self-imposed. I've read that they would have to pay taxes if they are over that weight, and rather than pay the taxes, they prefer to just keep the weight down.

 

I would also add that by building machines out of 'common' metals instead of special high-strength, low-weight alloys, they are easier to fix, as well as cheaper. Price one of those high strength, lightweight driveshafts, and then price a Polaris one. I have, and the one from Polaris, while heavier (and possibly not any stronger) was about half price. I can live with that trade off.