Thanks zorro700 for the confirmation. People that don't ride Polaris's don't understand until they actually ride one.

 

Absolutely NO common sense. Couldn't boil water in a iron pan if the directions were for a steel pan.

 

The diagram posted by RhinoOffRoad supports the claim by zorro700 and sp600towtruck that little slippage occurs. According to the diagram, the wheel is completely up the ramp in 15 degrees of rotation of the axle. Probably, it is more like 1/2 of that or 7.5 degrees. This translates to 7.5/360*3.1415*25 or 1.64 inches of tire travel. This means if the front tire is stopped, the rear tire will only move 1.6 inches before the front tire moves. This kind if movement is easily equal to the backlash in the drivetrain of any other competitor's system. Remember when crawling on rocks or any other hard surface, if you turn the front wheels and the front differential is locked, one or more of the tires will slip most drammatically (not good). The fact is that all four tires must turn at a different rate when you turn. When the front tires are not allowed to turn at different rates than the rear or each other, the steering feels heavy and tires slip. Rock crawling is most effective when you are going straight, something slips as soon as you turn the front tires. Most jeepers know that you prefer to unlock the front end when you turn on rocks. Probably one reason that the Polaris system is so effective is that not only are the front tires not locked together, but they are not locked to the rear either (unless the rear tires slip). This allows a differential LIKE action between not only the front to rear, but also between the front tires. This allows maximum torque to be available at the wheel with most traction. It seems to be a unique system. The best argument about Polaris vs others is that competitor's systems will have backlash in the drive train that will be at least as much as the slippage angle of the Polaris system. Another argument is that the polaris system will come unlocked when it needs to (in turns), whereas the competitors will force the wheels to slip due to no differential action.

 

Sorry guys my bad, the roller is at the top of the ramp in 30 degrees, not 15. 1/2 of that translates to 3.28 inches. I figure maximum distance between ramps at 60 degrees (6 side into 360 degrees). It is on the average only half of that off from any given ramp giving 30 degrees. But tolerances in the rollers must be less, so I suggest 15 degrees. If some one can give me exact mesurements I can calculate closer.

 

As I posted earlier, I think for climbing Polaris has a great 4-wd. I can't even fathom that that tiny little amount of rotation could ever make a difference. All the Polaris's I have ridden I could never feel it.

Its not all the machine. We have been out places where one of the guys just couldn't climb over a huge rock obstacle on his SP700 and I made it over and through it on our 4x4 Rancher, I even got a rented 2-wd Rancher through. He tried twice, tipped over once, and went around. Does that make our Rancher a more aggressive 4-wd? I don't think so. Maybe the rider is a little more skilled. I have helped my friend on his SP500 up a canyon call The Rock Garden with our Rubicon, he didn't like that. Oh well.

Just because you have the ATV with the "ultimate" 4-wd, does not mean you will finish first. Regardless of what machine at any cost from any manufacturer.

 

BryceGTX, you explained the engagement of the Polaris system better, with fewer words, than I would ever hope to. As a long-time Polaris owner, and wrench-turner, I can attest that it takes nothing near the 1/5 of a turn to engage the front wheels. In fact, I had my Xplorer on a lift not too long ago, and was fiddling with the 4wd system, and it goes from unlocked to locked in less than the distance between the lugs on the rear tire (489 XT tires). I think the confusion is in the 20% slip. Yes, 20% is equal to 1/5, but there is a big difference between 20% of a rotation, and a 20% DIFFERENCE in rotation.
It has been my experience that if you are in 2wd, and get stuck, then flip to 4wd, the rear wheels must spin about 4 inches before the initial hub engagement. However, if you flip it to 4wd a little ways BEFORE you get to the mudhole, and just idle into it until you stop, then hit the gas, the front wheels will grab at just the slightest hint of movement from the rear wheels, I would say maybe an inch or so.

Also, 20% is NOT a lot of slippage. We have a farm tractor with a true-speed radar on it. It also measures the speed of the rear wheels, and gives a readout of wheel slip percentage. According to the tractor owner's manual, the tractor is working at maximum efficency at 12-15% wheel slip. With that in mind, 20% is only 5% more than 'optimum'.

 

And some that have ridden a couple and think that they know everything, and are proven wrong, still never learn.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Exactly, physics IS physics. It's not totally brand loyalty, it's a matter of understanding how it actually works verses how "I think it should work like this so, there, that's what I believe, and I won't let anyone prove me wrong, even though I don't own a Polaris and don't understand the way it works."


Originally posted by: RhinoOffRoadLike I said before, get a Sportsman either off of the ground or on ice or in mud and try it out for yourself. That's the only way that non-Polaris people can seem to really understand it. Throw away the everything you've ever read or heard and start from seeing it with your own eyes. I ride mine almost everyday, in every terrain, so I know what it does. You, OBVIOUSLY, don't.


Originally posted by: RhinoOffRoad Thanks, well at least you DO know something. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]


Originally posted by: RhinoOffRoad BS... Another non-Polaris person blowing it out of their a$$. Listen, you are obviously too confused about the 20% thing, so just ignore that part of the manual. This will make better sense to you.

"As soon as the rear tires start to slip ever so slightly, the front tires engage, almost instantaneously, as if it were a true locker."

That is actually a more correct statement and less people, like yourself, will get confused from that definition. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

interesting enough ive seen it published that to get full time 4x4 out of a sportsman you put 20% larger tires on the front so that the rear is always slipping 20% (1/5th turn, as ive stated) in comparison therefore keeping the front cam locked. but your "because i said so" probably means more. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][/quote]

Proven again to be an absolute idiot! I can't believe you have enough intelligence to remember to breathe.......Hey!!!!!!! Breathe, your turning blue! If you put 20% bigger tires on the sportsman and YOU say it will be in 4WD. Sportsman tires are 25" in diameter ( I knew better than to put just dia. for you Rhino) that means they travel 78.5" per rotation (thats when the wheel rolls all the way around Rhino).....Circumference = (2)(R) or diameter times 3.14. If you put 20% bigger tires on the front then that is 30" (25 X .20 (20%) + 25 (original tire size)). You still with me Rhino? OH MY GOD RHINO BREATHE! I almost forgot, you O.K.? Now back to the task at hand. When the 4WD kicks in the front tires are going to rotate and travel a distance of 94.2" (30 X 3.14 incase you forgot) while the back tires turn 78.5" like a 25" tire will. THAT WON'T WORK RHINO!

Now that that's straightened out for you Rhino, back to slippage. Are you still going to tell us that the rear wheels slip 15.7" (25 X 3.14 X .2) your just going to have to ask your mother to explain that formula to you, this is taking up my time.

You digging a hole. You tell people this crap about the 15.7" of slippage to get the sportsman into 4WD and then say you've actually rode one, EVERYBODY knows or lying. OR....you have no clue what your talking when you start talking math and physics. OR the popular theory of BOTH.

RHINO.......BREATHE! COME ON BREATHE! Wow that was a close one.

By the way your icon fits you perfect.

 

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Just toooo funny Zorro. Nice one.






(BREATHE!!) Hahahahhahahahahhaaha