New Polaris Pro R

[Sand Shark]

I expect we will see more of this from the Polaris guys at the Sand Show this year? 

View attachment 39089

View attachment 39091

Look at those sad faces, and this car even has a famous bolt in it! 

You sure that is not sad faces of the deposit holders that won't be taking delivery of their cars at the show?  LMAO!!!!

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Sand Shark]

try putting a joint in the middle of stilts. now jump up and down and tell me where the stilts would fail?   its the same principle.  the only good fix for this design is to make shocks with a larger shaft and a custom lower clevis to receive the larger shaft size.....business idea...................

Those look to be 3/4" shock shafts. 

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Sand Shark]

Matlocks are Fox supported, so only Fox Shocks for them. Wayne’s limit strap theory does not make sense to me either! 

What was his limit strap theory?   Really should not need limit straps with the Fox shocks.  They have internal bumpstops. 

 

[Sand Shark]

Nope those were clearly Polaris guys who spent the whole weekend in a fairly empty booth. 

So this year Polaris booth with be filled with people and cars.  Speed booth sad faces and videos.  Got it!  LMAO!!!!!

We talked to the Polaris engineer for a while at the show last year.  Pretty informative.  They answer questions unlike the Can Am engineers who don't want to answer why they use such thin wall material on the frame.  

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Rockwood]

You sure that is not sad faces of the deposit holders that won't be taking delivery of their cars at the show?  LMAO!!!!

Any day now... :biggrin:

Wayne had said that they believe adding limit straps and mounting off the lower shock bolt was causing some sort of side load and that was causing the shafts to fail at the clevis. 
 

I guess they relocated their limit strap to a designated tab off the arm like a Real race car would do, and that solve all their shock failure issues?? 
 

I was told by someone else that most racers will run limit straps to reduce the wheel travel in the front as most of the negative geometry issues are found in the last few inches of full droop. There are a few geometry issues by design to reduce CV angle and make the axle live. Polaris was more about wheel travel numbers then proper geometry. But this geometry at full droop also puts the shock at a weird angle and on very high speed compression impacts the week link in the shaft/clevis can fail. Reducing droop wheel travel can help put the shock in a better angle to support those high impact loads. 
 

Id like to hear what ST has to say about Wayne’s theory? Lol! 

Unless the bolt was loose, this shouldn't happen.  If the design is how I'm picturing it, I'd think the long bolt (which I'm pretty sure is smaller than the shock shaft) would fail way before the shaft.  It really shouldn't see side load from the mounting point unless the bolt was loose and the whole clevis was rocking, or the pivot was binding. 

EDIT: NM, it would see some side load since the clevis can rotate independent of the control arm mount.

try putting a joint in the middle of stilts. now jump up and down and tell me where the stilts would fail?   its the same principle.  the only good fix for this design is to make shocks with a larger shaft and a custom lower clevis to receive the larger shaft size.....business idea...................

Unless there's a bind in the mounts, or someone's using a limit strap, the only side load the shaft should see would be from springs bowing, but the clevis doesn't give/reduce any leverage in this case since the spring perch is about level with where the shaft screws onto the clevis.  Possibly the valving, but again, this isn't really an issue with the clevis.

What material is used in the control armmount?  If it's rubber, yeah, that would be a problem if the durometer is too high and it won't twist enough.  Spherical shouldn't have any issues unless there's some whacky geometry where the arm rotates backwards and causes a bind.

 

[Sand Shark]

Wayne had said that they believe adding limit straps and mounting off the lower shock bolt was causing some sort of side load and that was causing the shafts to fail at the clevis. 
 

I guess they relocated their limit strap to a designated tab off the arm like a Real race car would do, and that solve all their shock failure issues?? 
 

I was told by someone else that most racers will run limit straps to reduce the wheel travel in the front as most of the negative geometry issues are found in the last few inches of full droop. There are a few geometry issues by design to reduce CV angle and make the axle live. Polaris was more about wheel travel numbers then proper geometry. But this geometry at full droop also puts the shock at a weird angle and on very high speed compression impacts the week link in the shaft/clevis can fail. Reducing droop wheel travel can help put the shock in a better angle to support those high impact loads. 
 

Id like to hear what ST has to say about Wayne’s theory? Lol! 

I was never a fan of the limit strap off the shock bolt.  Then again for recreational use I am not a fan of limit straps and think they are a waste of money.  

Interesting theory Wayne has come up with. 

 

[Rockwood]

I was never a fan of the limit strap off the shock bolt.  Then again for recreational use I am not a fan of limit straps and think they are a waste of money.  

Interesting theory Wayne has come up with. 

Edited my post with a purty picture.  Theory looks correct to me.

 

[CampfiresNbrews]

@Sand Shark Interesting. I don’t think the guy in the video sent it any harder or further then some of the other guys. Even if he did, I don’t and wouldn’t expect it to break the way it did?
 

Could very well be binding issues in the geometry of this front end. The band aid fix might be a larger thicker shock shaft or how about Polaris just get it right!

Here’s what Matlock said regarding the pictures of the broken shaft. This car had straps that I think contributed to the extra leverage at the top of the Clevis. Sounds like that is what failed on his setups as well . But the other car in the video I posted didn’t have straps so maybe a binding issue like what was said  

 

[Sand Shark]

@Sand Shark Interesting. I don’t think the guy in the video sent it any harder or further then some of the other guys. Even if he did, I don’t and wouldn’t expect it to break the way it did?
 

Could very well be binding issues in the geometry of this front end. The band aid fix might be a larger thicker shock shaft or how about Polaris just get it right!

Here’s what Matlock said regarding the pictures of the broken shaft. This car had straps that I think contributed to the extra leverage at the top of the Clevis. Sounds like that is what failed on his setups as well . But the other car in the video I posted didn’t have straps so maybe a binding issue like what was said  View attachment 39115

I guess that makes sense for the shaft snapping.

The guy sending it on the track - the problem is we see the aftermath, not how far he jumped or how hard he landed.  He said he over jumped.   

Come October we will see if the shock shaft is an issue or what other issues there maybe when people play sand darts with them in Glamis.  

Have you driven a Pro R?  I am have not and can not comment on how it handles.   I have a friend with one and he has no issues with it.  He loves it.  

 

[CampfiresNbrews]

Have not driven one either, yet. I too have a friend that just got one so hopefully we’ll get to compare once I get my speed car. I’m just bringing attention to this potential weak point that could cause catastrophic damage. If the speed car has some kind of issue or issues, I’m definitely letting the community know about it in hopes they can do something to fix it or at least be cognizant of it.

 

[Vikter]

Interesting theory Wayne has come up with. 

Interesting theory cause I remember them blaming pre-production shocks, then his race team for using the wrong size springs in the 1000. Weird too, think the 1000 was the only time he had shock issues and they didn’t run limit-straps to the bottom shock bolt. 

 

[DTA]

.

 

[Schmidty]

Any day now... :biggrin:

Unless the bolt was loose, this shouldn't happen.  If the design is how I'm picturing it, I'd think the long bolt (which I'm pretty sure is smaller than the shock shaft) would fail way before the shaft.  It really shouldn't see side load from the mounting point unless the bolt was loose and the whole clevis was rocking, or the pivot was binding. 

EDIT: NM, it would see some side load since the clevis can rotate independent of the control arm mount.

View attachment 39108

Unless there's a bind in the mounts, or someone's using a limit strap, the only side load the shaft should see would be from springs bowing, but the clevis doesn't give/reduce any leverage in this case since the spring perch is about level with where the shaft screws onto the clevis.  Possibly the valving, but again, this isn't really an issue with the clevis.

What material is used in the control armmount?  If it's rubber, yeah, that would be a problem if the durometer is too high and it won't twist enough.  Spherical shouldn't have any issues unless there's some whacky geometry where the arm rotates backwards and causes a bind.

There you go using common sense .. And not just  making “statements” that need to be made, to fit a narrative, protect someones sponsor, or undermine a competitor..

The shocks on all Pro R , and or Turbo R cars,  with either Fox Live “Valve”, or Walker Evans shocks ; front or rear  ALL have shafts 7/8” in diameter. Seeing where the shafts snapped at the the thread , suggests either bad material batch or heat treat.. Like I said previously, The forked eyelet, and retainer are both “cast” aluminum products.. Yes there have been some failures. My guess is that the “average” trail rider/duner is not going to see failures.. However there is always going to be that 3% that can and will break everything offered to the public.. That’s just an early on opinion, as We’ve already tested and developed spring and valving packages on 6 of the 8 offerings of  Pro R & Turbo R with either Fox or Walker Evans shock & have yet to see a failure, and we are pushing the cars very hard.. That said, there is a perceived need/want for replacement/stronger eyelets and retainers in the market, so we are in production to make both pieces to fill that request. They will be beefier, and made out better material.

 

[Muleyhunter24]

Wasn’t going to post this cause I’m not trying to hate but here’s another picture of another pro r where the SHOCK SHAFT not the CLEVIS LOOP broke. Bad design? Bad shock shaft materials, to small a shock shaft, or too much leverage at that point? Or all the above? What are your thoughts?View attachment 39052View attachment 39053

No doubt the Pro R has its weak points. Ball joints and the clevis seem to be the biggest issue. With this specific example, the shafts are not the problem. This is likely a shock tuning, setup issue with the shaft breaking. Seen setups where their crossover gaps never even engaged the main spring until the last 3/4” of travel with the spring rates they used. Plus the valving in their setups run a ton of bleed and seen carnage from their shocks from a race car as well. Guthrie didn’t seem to have any issues in the mint 400 with walkers placing at the top with Class 1 and Trick Trucks…

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Sand Shark]

Interesting theory cause I remember them blaming pre-production shocks, then his race team for using the wrong size springs in the 1000. Weird too, think the 1000 was the only time he had shock issues and they didn’t run limit-straps to the bottom shock bolt. 

At the 1000 they were running limit straps to the shock bolt.