New Polaris Pro R

tjZ06 said:
Having little to go on and making assured statements doesn't make you right.  If that's "all you have to go on" perhaps don't make such strong, self-confident claims?  You make it sound as if you were put under duress and required to give your official opinion.  If you don't know, and there's also not enough data to work from you could always just not say anything... 

-TJ
Click to expand...
What's wrong with talking a little chit? Lord knows, there were enough people doing it in the Speed thread...

hell, they were making up lies as they went along!

 
Robby stated he has the patent on the shock being attached on the lower control arm. If Polaris is planning on getting the definition of a UTV changed to include this 1200cc model, then maybe Robby was right when he said the forked bottom shock mount was their way of not violating his patent.

a 4 cyl 1200 cc engine? Isn't there a lighter, less complicated way to get 1200cc? Oh yeah, a 2 cyl would have a lot less moving parts. More moving parts = more friction, everything else being equal.

 
NIKAL said:
4cyl, 1200 cc. N/A, expecting the HP to be less then they currently put out in the XP Pro. 

CVT mounted behind the seat, like the old 800’s were. Future models will have a gearbox. 

6 u-joints, 2 carrier bearings which is concerning, considering they could not properly clock 2 u-joints right and have had carrier bearing issues in the past. 
 

Two differential units. Now they are using one in the front & one in the rear. Again Polaris has had issues in the past with the front dif, with either noise or using plastic cages in them. 

Link through the rear trailing arm is their version of a 3rd toe link. This it to help correct some of the rear steer issue they have with the current 2 link and trailing arm design. 

Heard it might be more then 72 inches? 74-75? 

Front lower shock shaft mount is split to allow the axle to go through it. Total head scratcher as they started with a clean slate. Either this was the best way they could figure it out (scary!) or it’s a way to get around a current patent? Also hearing this could get classified as a buggy vs a UTV, due to the 1200 cc. This could also be away to get around UTV patents. 
 

Don’t want to scare the buggy guys, but knowing how Polaris works, they will either lobby the legislature to change the definition of a UTV to increase the displacement to 1200cc’s or they wilL get legislation to make a new helmet law to cover all 4 wheel off road buggy type vehicles. I just can’t see them selling a vehicle that’s not covered by a law to protect them. But who knows? 
 

Lastly this is all fake as it’s not listed on Carbs site yet. We hear this all the time on the Speed UTV thread, even though I explained the process on the old thread. So I’m just throwing this back atcha! 
Click to expand...
This motor will be putting out more than 200hp.  I too heard they are calling it a buggy.  I can see all the buggy owners being pissed if they are roped into some type of helmet law.  

Be interesting to see what is said on 11/9.  

Looks like they are releasing a 4 seat version too from the teaser photo. 

We shall see how fickle some of those Speed UTV deposit holders might be when they see the new shiny toy.

I hear Can Am has something coming within the year. 

 
DTA said:
I'm no patent attorney but I googled some of Robbys stuff and he made the descriptions seem to be all encompassing for pretty much any and all offroad vehicles.

The forked lower shock mount is simply a different design which doesn't violate the patent and I don't think has any correlation with the 1200cc engine and non utv denotation. 

I think them going bigger is for other reasons which we may never know about.

Or it's as simple as getting more power is easier with more displacement and since they are the largest manufacturer they will simply get the so called rules and guidelines changed to suit them. I'm sure once they throw a turbo on the 4 cylinder and change the cvt to a sequential it's going to have gobs of power.

Hence why I posted earlier about the race orgs and how they will be handling these changes. 

We will see what shakes in the coming months.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to pick on the 1200cc aspect.

In my mind, there is only one right way to do things. The best way, based on form following function. In the case of engines, I would want the most power with the most reliability with the fewest parts. I know it's a balancing act, push an engine too far, it's no longer reliable.

Robby has the right idea with going 1300cc in a 2 cylinder. Going to 4 cylinders for only 1200cc uses too many parts, too many moving parts, too much complexity, too much friction.

When they do put a turbo on it, how many hp short of the Speed 1300cc turbo engine is it going to be?

On a related note, traditionally, 4 cylinder gas engines have been limited to roughly 3 L or less, due to primary balance issues. However, a relatively new company has redesigned the 4 cylinder engine and has come out with a smooth 7.5L engine producing 654hp. Now aside from it being innovative, it's a complete paradigm shift. In my mind, it makes a lot of V6 and V8 engines obsolete, not only from an output perspective, but an engine weight perspective, complexity, etc.

In my mind (probably a little narrow minded) all of the lower output V6s and V8s can be replaced in future cars with a 654hp N/A 4 cylinder. Why choose a heavier, bulkier, more complex V8 with less hp? It makes no sense to me.

In other words, who needs the other options when there is a clear winner? I suspect Robby has exactly the same outlook, because his choices have been far too "no compromises" when he designed the Speed to think he ever said, "Oh, that's good enough." It's clear to me there is already a winner and Polaris didn't build it.

For anyone who disagrees with me, I'll simply refer to the Speed CAD drawings.

I understand Polaris is going to sell a chit ton of these. Don't confuse popular with the best, the majority of consumers have rarely understood what the best was in any category, be it vacuum cleaners or UTVs.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
Now this is a disturbing looking drive train. Yes, that sideways piece is the belt drive housing, with an input shaft and 2 output shafts. It's located right behind the seats. Can you say nightmare?   LOL How exactly do you put a new belt on with 2 driveshafts coming out opposite sides? 

"the “base” version will launch with a new CVT housing (first reported on our Facebook page) located BEHIND the seats!"



Click to expand...
These two diagrams obviously do not fit together. First, the “through” shaft on the CVT cover diagram would not be coming from the primary clutch side, that makes no sense. And second, the CVT belt would not be after the gearbox in the drive line; an essential design aspect is to disconnect power between low/high gearbox and motor at low RPM. Yes the RZR 800 has a belt behind the seats, but it is still a CVT system between the motor and the gearbox and does not have two output shafts coming out of belt housing. Maybe these BS diagrams together make it by the dumba** people on the Facebook forums but not GD.com…

Here’s the link to the article where those diagrams come from: https://sxsguys.com/news/annoucements/2021-polaris-rzr-pro-r-predictions-mockups/

The full driveline diagram is from a Polaris patent for a transfer case to split drive shafts. There’s no CVT there, that would be clutch or auto-clutch in the bell housing just off the motor. What the article suggests is that the initial base version will be a driveline similar to that one but with a CVT in the driveline instead of that bell housing and trans. If they do that, then the CVT will be sideways in the car because the crankshaft from the big 4 cylinder runs front to back in the car (belt runs perpendicular to crankshaft).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tjZ06 said:
Everybody has been saying this will have the new 4cyl NA motor from the Slingshot and a sequential.  I've had serious doubts about that the whole time.  First, would Polaris want to break the ROTV definition?  What would that even look like for selling in CA?  Second, Polaris has no history with a sequential, it'd be a new from-scratch deal for them.  So I finally watched the vid, my thoughts...

  • It does sound like it could be a bigger NA 4cyl, but also sounds a bit like a PROSTAR
  • It does NOT sound like a sequential, it definitely sounds and acts like a CVT though when he gets on it after the big opening jump.  When they show the dash at like 1:46 as he accelerates off the jump, goes to like 8700 RPM and just holds - CVT-like.  All throughout when he gets on it it jumps and holds RPM like a CVT
  • Can we talk about how close he came to over-jumping that big opening jump and pure flat-landing it on pavement??? 😐😐😐😐
  • Wilkey was there for the sand-drags, somebody aXe him what the scoop is
  • It does indeed look like Polaris is trying to answer the call of the newer X3s (200HP RR) and Speed 

-TJ
Click to expand...
Yeah that opening jump overshoot would be a back breaker without all that travel/suspension.

Dialed suspension and now decent HP is what can make as SXS fun.

I’m onna be a broken record, but SXS are now ‘finished’ with development. I see no reason for anything but a CVT, otherwise get a rail or ultra 4 car.

I’ve done the 2 wheel thing but not on purpose 😬

abc

PS. Is this thing 64” or 72” wide?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ANGRYBUTTCRACK said:
Yeah that opening jump overshoot would be a back breaker without all that travel/suspension.

Dialed suspension and now decent HP is what can make as SXS fun.

I’m onna be a broken record, but SXS are now ‘finished’ with development. I see no reason for anything but a CVT, otherwise get a rail or ultra 4 car.

I’ve done the 2 wheel thing but not on purpose 😬

abc

PS. Is this thing 64” or 72” wide?
Click to expand...
I agree, The biggest difference will be in the driver and some set up "secrets" but your high as fluck if you think the difference between 90% of the drivers around here and the guys who make a living at driving, We are talking the RG's the Biffles, The RJ Anderson's   is not that big of difference. Just because you can keep up on a ride with real drivers and think you can compete with them is like saying you followed Tomac around Glenn Helen during a practice session for a couple laps and tell everybody he wasn't that fast. 

 
ABC already stated he could smoke RG in his Speed driving his Rzr.

I'm encouraging him, hoping for video footage!

 
Biffle had a bunch of ‘rented hussies’… blow up jacuzzi.. blow up dolls and whatnot .. took up all of Ozborne overlook about 8 years ago… they ‘stopped’ me from taking (more) pictures 🤣… I’ve never poster them… he probably got divorced and started winning after that trip in G.

abc

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I’m just glad when I don’t wake up sleeping on concrete.., with doors you can’t open… you know… jail.. probably did the OC loop like 8 times by now… 😬🤦‍♂️

Anyone say if this thing is 72” wide or not… 

… SXS are now like fake plastic eggs., in a fake wicker (plastic) baskets 🧺 … with fake … wait for it.. plastic grass… 

.. you just find out if there are jelly beans, M&Ms or skittles inside…

… eff all this … I want a V8 LSX with no muffler.

Posing,

abc

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord of the Dunes said:
I'm just going to pick on the 1200cc aspect.

In my mind, there is only one right way to do things. The best way, based on form following function. In the case of engines, I would want the most power with the most reliability with the fewest parts. I know it's a balancing act, push an engine too far, it's no longer reliable.

Robby has the right idea with going 1300cc in a 2 cylinder. Going to 4 cylinders for only 1200cc uses too many parts, too many moving parts, too much complexity, too much friction.

When they do put a turbo on it, how many hp short of the Speed 1300cc turbo engine is it going to be?

On a related note, traditionally, 4 cylinder gas engines have been limited to roughly 3 L or less, due to primary balance issues. However, a relatively new company has redesigned the 4 cylinder engine and has come out with a smooth 7.5L engine producing 654hp. Now aside from it being innovative, it's a complete paradigm shift. In my mind, it makes a lot of V6 and V8 engines obsolete, not only from an output perspective, but an engine weight perspective, complexity, etc.

In my mind (probably a little narrow minded) all of the lower output V6s and V8s can be replaced in future cars with a 654hp N/A 4 cylinder. Why choose a heavier, bulkier, more complex V8 with less hp? It makes no sense to me.

In other words, who needs the other options when there is a clear winner? I suspect Robby has exactly the same outlook, because his choices have been far too "no compromises" when he designed the Speed to think he ever said, "Oh, that's good enough." It's clear to me there is already a winner and Polaris didn't build it.

For anyone who disagrees with me, I'll simply refer to the Speed CAD drawings.

I understand Polaris is going to sell a chit ton of these. Don't confuse popular with the best, the majority of consumers have rarely understood what the best was in any category, be it vacuum cleaners or UTVs.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking for regular production engines (read: not hand built and expected to last more than a season without shaking the chit out of everything), there are some issues (vibration, oil consumption, etc) above 500cc per cylinder if you're revving the piss out of them (read: high horsepower) that must be overcome.  It's not necessarily hard, just results in extra engineering and components that offsets simplified BOM savings.  This is especially true for I-2s with inherent primary and secondary balance issues (with only 2 cylinders in a row, it's trade-off no matter how you slice it). Larger the displacement, the more unbalanced the engine becomes. I'm assuming Robbie followed current convention with a 270* crank, so this means larger and larger balance shafts to counter the larger components that come with larger displacement.

Either way, seeing as nearly every fast street bike is 4 cylinders at 600-1300cc, I doubt too many parts is really an issue since they're all identical parts.  

Flat-plane crank 4 cylinders (R1 is the only cross-plane currently sold I'm aware of) have perfect primary balance, btw. Secondary balance is an issue with flat-plane crank inline 4s since pairs of pistons are starting/stopping at the same time.  

As for the large displacement I-4...  Fine for outboards.  Not so awesome packaging wise for vehicles.

But, hey, Robbie did it with 2 cylinders, therefore it's the right way and everyone else will end in tears, right? :biggrin:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top