New Polaris Pro R

Cookie said:
The bigger issue with SxS (especially Rhinos) is how close your head is to the ground on a tip over. The outside bars on the roll cage are only a couple inches out further than your head, simple tip over and your head is hitting the ground.  They are better now, but still close.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Even though my sand rail is very roomy, I have no doubt in a violent rollover, I'd easily be flopping around enough to have my head close enough to possibly hit the ground. As a constant recipient of lessons based on Murphy's Law, I always wear a helmet. You just never know what will happen next even if you try to be careful.

 
Sand Shark said:
The old days were they eyeballed it and called it good.  LOL!  

I guess we will find out soon enough if the a-arm break was a freak deal or a design/material issue. 
Click to expand...
Everything "can" break. Don't be fooled that CAD is some kind "magic". Engineering principals are the same FAE is just a fancy term for doing your homework - its not "Better" because it was drawn on a Computer - it was done faster, and that saves money, so for the manufacturer its better.  But it still follows the the still garbage in, garbage out - the "variables" are still hand keyed in - get those wrong and the design is useless. 

the best engineering can still fail not just in our sport


I don't belive when I read the side of a Chromo stick and it says "made in China" that I can use the "profile for a USA made Chromo stick" in my CAD and FAE SW 

Not saying this golf cart is a bad design compared to other SxS golf carts,  it looks pretty stout and well designed to me, but thats not a license to "send it" more than you did with the last generation just because its an improved design - these are Recreational vehicles, not "out of the box race cars"  people seem to forget that ....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
46 minutes ago, Fullthrottleguy said:

Everything "can" break. Don't be fooled that CAD is some kind "magic". Engineering principals are the same FAE is just a fancy term for doing your homework - its not "Better" because it was drawn on a Computer - it was done faster, and that saves money, so for the manufacturer its better.  But it still follows the the still garbage in, garbage out - the "variables" are still hand keyed in - get those wrong and the design is useless. 

the best engineering can still fail not just in our sport

Click to expand...
True.

I've seen negative effects of using CAD to design yachts. Back in 2000 or so, Leopard built 45 and 47 ft catamarans without CAD and hand laid the fiberglass hulls nice and thick, based on what they felt it needed.

Fast forward to the last few yrs, they used CAD to reduce weight and put the extra layers only where they thought they needed them. This resulted in lighter, thinner hulls, but even vacuum bagging the hulls couldn't make up for the reduced strength. Now the 22 yr old cats look in better shape than models built in 2018. They used to sail them over from South Africa, but now with the newer hulls, they feel it's too risky and expensive to deliver them that way, so they come over on huge cargo ships in batches. They neglected to add enough safety margin to withstand the forces of rough seas and storms.

It wasn't CAD that is at fault, but the engineers somehow miscalculated how much strength they needed, starting with the CAD designed hulls.

 
2 hours ago, Fullthrottleguy said:

Everything "can" break. Don't be fooled that CAD is some kind "magic". Engineering principals are the same FAE is just a fancy term for doing your homework - its not "Better" because it was drawn on a Computer - it was done faster, and that saves money, so for the manufacturer its better.  But it still follows the the still garbage in, garbage out - the "variables" are still hand keyed in - get those wrong and the design is useless. 

the best engineering can still fail not just in our sport

Click to expand...
I know CAD is not the end all be all, but some people seem to think CAD design is a stamp for indestructible. 

The are quite capable machines for a production vehicle, but by no means indestructible or ready to race. 

We had an engineer camp with us once in Glamis.  It was his first time to the dunes.  He looked at a friend's sand rail and said it was a hodgepodge of tubes welded together.  I could not stop laughing. 

 
Sand Shark said:
I know CAD is not the end all be all, but some people seem to think CAD design is a stamp for indestructible. 

The are quite capable machines for a production vehicle, but by no means indestructible or ready to race. 

We had an engineer camp with us once in Glamis.  It was his first time to the dunes.  He looked at a friend's sand rail and said it was a hodgepodge of tubes welded together.  I could not stop laughing. 
Click to expand...
I saw a sand rail like that at the SSSS in 2005 or 2006. This really fat guy smoking a cigar is standing by the most poorly designed chassis I'd ever seen. The guy acts like a carnie and says something like, "She's a beauty, eh?" I almost laughed out loud! It had no body panels, bare tubing everywhere and it was a nightmare. I don't think I could have attached more dead tubes if I had tried!

He asked me what I thought. I was feeling charitable and was in a hurry to get somewhere else, so instead of going into details, I just said, "Hopefully nobody buys that!" and took off.   LOL

Then at the 2007 SSSS I saw a beautifully designed and welded rolling chassis from Trident (Triton?) Motorsports. I looked closely and said, "These welds remind me of welds I saw on the Penhall website..." the 2 guys started laughing and said, "We just left Penhall to start our own company! Those are our welds!" I wished them good luck, but 2008 pretty much wiped out all of the smaller shops.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
I saw a sand rail like that at the SSSS in 2005 or 2006. This really fat guy smoking a cigar is standing by the most poorly designed chassis I'd ever seen. The guy acts like a carnie and says something like, "She's a beauty, eh?" I almost laughed out loud! It had no body panels, bare tubing everywhere and it was a nightmare. I don't think I could have attached more dead tubes if I had tried!

He asked me what I thought. I was feeling charitable and was in a hurry to get somewhere else, so instead of going into details, I just said, "Hopefully nobody buys that!" and took off.   LOL

Then at the 2007 SSSS I saw a beautifully designed and welded rolling chassis from Trident (Triton?) Motorsports. I looked closely and said, "These welds remind me of welds I saw on the Penhall website..." the 2 guys started laughing and said, "We just left Penhall to start our own company! Those are our welds!" I wished them good luck, but 2008 pretty much wiped out all of the smaller shops.
Click to expand...
A few year ago we were walking around the sand show looking at a cage on a SXS.  The guy asked what we thought.  My friend did not hold back and I am not sure that guy will every be the same.  LOL!

 
Things like the SR71, and B52 were designed without CAD, when people like Kelly Johnson knew how to get chit done.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
True.

I've seen negative effects of using CAD to design yachts. Back in 2000 or so, Leopard built 45 and 47 ft catamarans without CAD and hand laid the fiberglass hulls nice and thick, based on what they felt it needed.

Fast forward to the last few yrs, they used CAD to reduce weight and put the extra layers only where they thought they needed them. This resulted in lighter, thinner hulls, but even vacuum bagging the hulls couldn't make up for the reduced strength. Now the 22 yr old cats look in better shape than models built in 2018. They used to sail them over from South Africa, but now with the newer hulls, they feel it's too risky and expensive to deliver them that way, so they come over on huge cargo ships in batches. They neglected to add enough safety margin to withstand the forces of rough seas and storms.

It wasn't CAD that is at fault, but the engineers somehow miscalculated how much strength they needed, starting with the CAD designed hulls.
Click to expand...
They call that Value Engineering. LOL

1HasBeen said:
Things like the SR71, and B52 were designed without CAD, when people like Kelly Johnson knew how to get chit done.
Click to expand...
There's engineering and materials.  More of one usually means you need less of the other. :biggrin:

The Soviets had less engineers, so they just installed 2 of everything. :biggrin:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1HasBeen said:
Things like the SR71, and B52 were designed without CAD, when people like Kelly Johnson knew how to get chit done.
Click to expand...
Those guys were using materials on the SR71 that were rarely used to solve problems no one had ever dealt with before! The expansion of the skin from sea level to flight altitude was pretty crazy! They just let it dribble and refueled it once it was up in the air!

:lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really do like the look of the PRO R 4, will be interesting to see how that 2.0L motor does as well.

rzr-pro-r-4-sport-stealth-gray.png


Base model at $35k not too bad either.

 
Crusty said:
I really do like the look of the PRO R 4, will be interesting to see how that 2.0L motor does as well.



Base model at $35k not too bad either.
Click to expand...
TMW has been posting on their IG page.  The 4 seater scoots pretty well.  It does not look like a slouch from the videos TMW has posted. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top