New Polaris Pro R

[Sand Shark]

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…

That shock tuning company does run some interesting set ups. 

 

[Sand Shark]

Mitch also has a completely aftermarket custom front suspension on his Pro R. I believe he was the first to work with XTravel on the Pro R and that’s also what the Matlocks changed too. He is also limiting the travel and might have repositioned the shocks on the arm or chassis too. 
 

View attachment 39169

That X-Travel suspension set up is pretty trick.  It must work pretty darn good as Mitch has done well everytime he races his Pro R.   His first run with the suspension was a KOH in the utv/class 10 race.  

Murray racing runs the suspension on their X3.  

I hope X-travel is at the sandshow next month.  I would like to check out the suspension.  

 

[Schmidty]

Schmidty have you cycled the suspension to check things like tow, camber, scrub, bumpsteer & track change? I ask because we all know at full droop these cars look like a old swing axle VW rear suspension. It was said that was purposely done as they could not get the proper geometry and cv angle. Pretty much a mess! 
 

But later on I was told that at full droop the shock to lower arm angle is a bit extreme and under normal conditions it’s fine. But those times when you come down extremely hard, or on one wheel more then the other at high speed the shock can fail in the initial few inches as that’s the hardest angle on the shock to cycle back through at high speed and that is what’s most likely causing this mass failure. In what would be the weakest, high leverage point. If the suspension was limited and a couple inches of droop taken out,  it puts the shock in a better geometry angle to the arm and these failures would not happen or be greatly reduced. 
 

What’s  your thoughts? 

I think all manufacturers push the limits to post/advertise bigger #’s in both suspension and HP. Polaris is no more guilty than Canned Ham. Have you ever cycled an X3 front and rear? There is some crazy hot mess stuff going on there also..  I have no dog in the hunt, our job is to tune what the manufacturer puts out.. I think that often, there is a lot of hear-say on these topics, and that often there extenuating circumstances that drive outcomes, and then “blame” on part failure is placed where the “narrative” or the “agenda” fits..

 

[Rockwood]

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.

Yeah.  I know people that can break a steel ball in a rubber room.  I think they should make a "resume" of all the chit they've broken and send it to an OEM as an "I can test your chit and find out what sucks" job application.  Dream job.

Schmidty have you cycled the suspension to check things like tow, camber, scrub, bumpsteer & track change? I ask because we all know at full droop these cars look like a old swing axle VW rear suspension. It was said that was purposely done as they could not get the proper geometry and cv angle. Pretty much a mess! 
 

But later on I was told that at full droop the shock to lower arm angle is a bit extreme and under normal conditions it’s fine. But those times when you come down extremely hard, or on one wheel more then the other at high speed the shock can fail in the initial few inches as that’s the hardest angle on the shock to cycle back through at high speed and that is what’s most likely causing this mass failure. In what would be the weakest, high leverage point. If the suspension was limited and a couple inches of droop taken out,  it puts the shock in a better geometry angle to the arm and these failures would not happen or be greatly reduced. 
 

What’s  your thoughts? 

Wouldn't that cause additional loading/stress on the control arms and mounting points, not so much the shock?

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Rockwood]

Sure, but if your weaker link is the ball joint or shock where it mounts to the clevis, then you would expect those to fail before the arm. In the video posted above the guys lower arm did fail, but that’s probably a result of the shock & ball joint failure first. 

On the Can Am the lower arm is known to fold, which Can Am claims was a design feature to protect other items. Not sure what the other item is as many people either weld the gusset patch on the stock arm or replace the arm with something stronger. Maybe Shark can tell us what is the next link in the Can Am chain is after the arm is strengthened? Ball joint maybe? 

Increased angle means the arm binds more than pivots.  I don't see how this would cause additional stress for the shock unless chit moves so much the shock binds.  Ball joints and control arm pivots, absolutely, and that funky angle is probably didn't help the ball joints on the SxSBlog Pro R.  The lower control arm mount reduces angle significantly compared to the upper control arm mount, so this should've been a problem before, clevis or not (again: the spring and valving are what would act on the shaft).  

This is one of the reasons why companies like Can Am run the "funky" layout of their new suspension that was leaked: the larger the separation between the control arms, the less leverage the tire has on the ball joints.

In short: the clevis isn't the Boogeyman here.

 

[Vikter]

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

Really?

 

[Sand Shark]

Sure, but if your weaker link is the ball joint or shock where it mounts to the clevis, then you would expect those to fail before the arm. In the video posted above the guys lower arm did fail, but that’s probably a result of the shock & ball joint failure first. 

On the Can Am the lower arm is known to fold, which Can Am claims was a design feature to protect other items. Not sure what the other item is as many people either weld the gusset patch on the stock arm or replace the arm with something stronger. Maybe Shark can tell us what is the next link in the Can Am chain is after the arm is strengthened? Ball joint maybe? 

Can Am claims the lower arm design is to protect the frame.   Not sure the frame would bend in that location.  By the way on the 2022 models they allegedly beefed up the material in the bend of the lower a-arm, so maybe they finally figured out it was not needed to protect the frame.

You keep talking about ball joints and the only time I have seen a ball joint fail on a Can Am was either a broken Keller ball joint (which was allegedly stronger) or if some one lawn darted their car hard enough to break/bend a bunch of other stuff.  On the Polaris only time I have seen a broken ball joint is after a hard lawn dart where they bent or broke a bunch of stuff (hit so hard the Sparco steering wheel bent) or again the person used an aftermarket ball joint that was allegedly stronger. 

For recreational use there is nothing wrong with ball joints. If I were desert racing then yes a uniball set up would be better.  

On my last X3 I replaced the ball joints after 7,000+ miles.   One had a torn boot, but all of them appeared to still be in good shape.  My XP1000 the original ball joints were still going strong when I sold it with 5500 miles and the next owner never touched them when he sold it with close to 8,000 miles on it. 

A lot of these perceived weak links would not be a weak link if people drove within their abilities.  

 

[Sand Shark]

Really?View attachment 39178View attachment 39179

Look closely and you will see a limit strap.  They have the limit straps at a funky angle so it is hard to see.  Was this picture from the 1000?

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Vikter]

We see the limit strap. What Vitker was pointing out is the mounting location. You said Matlocks had them mounted off the shock and he’s showing they did not at the 1000. 

Exactly, yes they ran limit straps at the 1000 just not off the bottom shock bolt/clevis. The 1000 is the only race I heard of them having shock issues, think it was twice they had extended pits replacing shocks. 

 

[Sand Shark]

We see the limit strap. What Vitker was pointing out is the mounting location. You said Matlocks had them mounted off the shock and he’s showing they did not at the 1000. 

I see that after I posted. 

EDITED -  Wayne's theory was for the Pro R posted in this thread that had the limit strap mounted to the lower shock bolt.  

I think his reasoning as to why he had shock failures at the 1000 remains the wrong spring lengths. 

 

[Sand Shark]

Exactly, yes they ran limit straps at the 1000 just not off the bottom shock bolt/clevis. The 1000 is the only race I heard of them having shock issues, think it was twice they had extended pits replacing shocks. View attachment 39184View attachment 39185

After the 1000 he said it was too short of a spring they used.  So when Nikal posted Wayne's theory it was different than what he said after the 1000. 

EDIT  - Wayne's theory was in reference to the Pro R with the busted shock shaft and the limit strap bolted to the shock bolt.  

 

[Vikter]

I see that after I posted. 

EDITED -  Wayne's theory was for the Pro R posted in this thread that had the limit strap mounted to the lower shock bolt.  

I think his reasoning as to why he had shock failures at the 1000 remains the wrong spring lengths. 

A little deceiving in his post, makes it sound like the issues he had were due to running straps to the lower bolt. Not really a theory saying he learned the hard way. 

 

[Schmidty]

I have not personally cycled a Can Am, but I know people who have and you are correct they have there own “Hot Mess” as you put it too. 
 

You did not answer my question about your thoughts on the possible shock bind at full droop on high speed compression landings. It’s OK if you don’t know or want to answer that question, as you said it’s your job to tune what your given, not necessarily re-engineer what the OEM did. But I was just wondering your thoughts on this as you have way more experience on the Pro R then anyone on this site. 

I don’t have the ability to draw-it out , but honestly, at “full droop” the shock is at its most vertical position in the entire stroke. So when “compression“ begins at full droop, since the shock is at its most vertical point in the stroke between its 2 mounting points, it is probably experiencing  the least amount of “side loading” there.. the more it compresses, the more the shock lays down, and in my opinion where side loading “if any at all” would be occurring. So, IMHO the statement of  “binding” @ full droop holds zero water. As for  limit straps.. they have their purpose, but for the average Joe. Not needed. Companies that make big $ pushing them would have you believe everything including your kids red wagon need them.Furthermore, I have seen more setups come in our shop with the adjustment so far out of whack on straps, that they were probably doing more to hinder a quality ride than help it.. 

 

[Schmidty]

Increased angle means the arm binds more than pivots.  I don't see how this would cause additional stress for the shock unless chit moves so much the shock binds.  Ball joints and control arm pivots, absolutely, and that funky angle is probably didn't help the ball joints on the SxSBlog Pro R.  The lower control arm mount reduces angle significantly compared to the upper control arm mount, so this should've been a problem before, clevis or not (again: the spring and valving are what would act on the shaft).  

This is one of the reasons why companies like Can Am run the "funky" layout of their new suspension that was leaked: the larger the separation between the control arms, the less leverage the tire has on the ball joints.

In short: the clevis isn't the Boogeyman here.

Again there you go , using Physics and common sense to dispel , hearsay and pitchfork carrying lynch mobs.. LOL 

 

[Schmidty]

Really?View attachment 39178View attachment 39179

epic Bidenese!!

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[CampfiresNbrews]

Alright so I’ve never changed a belt in any SXS. but good lawd almighty is this ridiculous? This is in clean ideal and no breakage conditions and with all the right tools. can you imagine doing this on a tight  trail or in the rain, mud or in traffic? That would suck for you and your passengers.