New Polaris Pro R

1 hour ago, CampfiresNbrews said:

So Shock Therapy just did a YouTube video on the Pro R. Said they now have a fix for the front Clevis. Says the shock shaft snaps off where it threads into the Clevis when it goes into bind due to side loading from big jumps or wrong spring packages. Also shows his fix for the rear toe link. 
 

Oh and the best part, he now has a patent pending on them. 🤣 RG. ain’t the only one protecting himself. 
 

Click to expand...
Hmmm... why am I not surprised???

I seem to remember somebody defending that like he was the one who invented it...

:lmao:

 
John@Outfront said:
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...................
Click to expand...
☝This is what I also thought. I’m with @John@Outfront on this one. Guess ST is also as he seems to think there is a market for this “issue” or he wouldn’t of bothered. Anyways , it’s a bad design that’s passed on to the poor consumer. Fortunately there’s now a fix   Dang it @John@Outfront we could have made $$ on this. 😉

@NIKAL I have caught Justin’s subtle suggestions on limiting the travel as well. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord of the Dunes said:
Hmmm... why am I not surprised???

I seem to remember somebody defending that like he was the one who invented it...

:lmao:
Click to expand...
200.gif


 
NIKAL said:
Well at least Polaris is consistent across the board with all their vehicles. 
 

https://yrtnews.com/polaris-says-230000-of-its-snowmobiles-need-a-security-solution/amp/

230,000 snowmobile issued a Stop/Ride/Sell recall due to failing fuel tanks and fires. 
 

In the article it states that over 58,000 Polaris off road vehicles have been recalled in 2022 for various issues. And  Polaris has been sued by customers and fined $27 million for not  reporting fires in a timely manner. It also mentions new management, which we knew about with CEO Scott Wine leaving last year. 
 

Some of this is “Just doing business “ but allot of this also seems excessive for any manufacture? I have not heard that the other recreational manufactures having these sorts of issues.  
 

I believe the Pro R might have opened Pandora’s box for Polaris. I very much hope I’m wrong, but we might see the Honda 3 wheeler & Yamaha Rhino type lawsuits again. The Pro R does not have protection under the laws written to protect the UTV. And Polaris history shows they have lots of issues with safety already. 
Click to expand...
Recalls are a plenty with the auto manufactures these days.  Ford had to bring in a new person to oversee quality control because it was so bad.  My wife has a new Infinity that has some issue with the a/c fan that they have no fix.   

Polaris having issues is no surprise.  Nor the amount of recalled vehicles.  Just shows you how many vehicles they sell compared to the other manufactures.  

NIKAL said:
They sure have allot of fixes for the Pro R. I don’t know if it was on this thread or another one, but I said and suspected it was the load where the shaft & clevis go together. Makes total sense as the pivot point is 4 plus inches below the base of the shaft. 
 

Also anyone else notice Justin quickly mentions it could be a good thing to reduce wheel travel in the front of the Pro R. He’s tiptoe’d around that topic a few times, but won’t come out and say the geometry’s a mess at droop. 
Click to expand...
Did you think Shock Therapy or any aftermarket company was not going to claim to have "fixes"?   They are in the aftermarket and need to make money.  With that said, their lower clevis design seems to be legit and make you wonder why Fox and Polaris did not think of that.  

Justin mentioned wrong springs as a cause and that goes with what Matlock claimed was the issue at the 1000.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NIKAL said:
It will be interesting when the Speed UTV is out in peoples hands what ST try’s to make fixes for? It wont need swaybar links, but he will probably offer them. It won’t need a tie rod kit or a Rack. There’s no links in the rear to upgrade. The shocks are already dual rate springs with cross over rings. 
 

The only things I can think he might try to offer is a spring kit & re-valve. But then again it’s not a Fox or Walker shock, and with Fox owning part of ST, he might not touch a Speed shock? So maybe just springs kits?  

Justin loves to sell limit strap kits. Not sure how he will mount the limit straps as the shocks are pocketed in the arms? I bet both kits will be pretty pricey too. 
 
Click to expand...
I bet they don't really spend much time on the Speed UTV.  They are in the business to make money.  Spending time and money to R&D and develop parts on a car with minimal units out and about is not worth the return.   Hence why they did very little with the Wildcat XX other than shock packages.   I suspect that is the extent Shock Therapy will go with the Speed UTV. Maybe they do some billet swaybar links as those are pretty easy to make.

 
DTA said:
Doesn't negate the fact the upgrades aren't needed. 
Click to expand...
Things break. With the correct springs on there, there shouldn’t be any side load unless the mounts are binding or limit straps on are on the bolt. 

Sand Shark said:
Recalls are a plenty with the auto manufactures these days.  Ford had to bring in a new person to oversee quality control because it was so bad.  My wife has a new Infinity that has some issue with the a/c fan that they have no fix.   

Polaris having issues is no surprise.  Nor the amount of recalled vehicles.  Just shows you how many vehicles they sell compared to the other manufactures.  

Did you think Shock Therapy or any aftermarket company was not going to claim to have "fixes"?   They are in the aftermarket and need to make money.  With that said, their lower clevis design seems to be legit and make you wonder why Fox and Polaris did not think of that.  

Justin mentioned wrong springs as a cause and that goes with what Matlock claimed was the issue at the 1000.  
Click to expand...
Seems like it would eat into bump travel, no? Is it typical “usable travel” bullshit where that bump travel is after the frame cases anyway?

Fox has been making extended eyelets for decades now, which would cause the same type of leverage if there’s side load. If this was such a problem, you’d think they’d have addressed it or stopped selling them. I have a feeling something else is causing these shaft failures. If the shaft is breaking at the threads, the extension sold by the Repo Man is gonna just bend the shaft now. 

Lord of the Dunes said:
Hmmm... why am I not surprised???

I seem to remember somebody defending that like he was the one who invented it...

:lmao:
Click to expand...
Lol. You guys said the clevis was weak. It’s obviously stronger than the shock it’s mounted to. 

 
Rockwood said:
Things break. With the correct springs on there, there shouldn’t be any side load unless the mounts are binding or limit straps on are on the bolt. 

Seems like it would eat into bump travel, no? Is it typical “usable travel” bullshit where that bump travel is after the frame cases anyway?

Fox has been making extended eyelets for decades now, which would cause the same type of leverage if there’s side load. If this was such a problem, you’d think they’d have addressed it or stopped selling them. I have a feeling something else is causing these shaft failures. If the shaft is breaking at the threads, the extension sold by the Repo Man is gonna just bend the shaft now. 

Lol. You guys said the clevis was weak. It’s obviously stronger than the shock it’s mounted to. 
Click to expand...
I agree there really is no need to upgrade the clevis as it should not be an issue.  Even in his video he mentions people jumping super high (I think he said 30' in the air some crazy number) or doing other stuff they probably should not be doing in the first place. 

The shock shaft is a large diameter and I think his design of spreading the load to the shaft will help.  If you bend that shock shaft you are likely going for an ambulance ride. 

The only time we have seen the shock shaft break at the clevis is when someone has been jumping huge or in Matlock's case the wrong springs.   Leads me to believe it will be a non issue for 98% of the users. 

I believe there was a shock tuner on this thread that said the clevis upgrade is not needed, but because people will buy them he will sell them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NIKAL said:
Here is the King Shock with clevis for the Brenthel trucks notice how the shaft reassess inside the clevis. If you zoom in it almost looks like the part of the shaft that reassesses in the clevis is larger diameter. Next time I see a Brenthel truck I’ll have to pay more attention. I also wonder how ST patent could effect Kings design? 
 

View attachment 43372
Click to expand...
It won't effect Patent at all if it's proven to have been done before the patent in question. 

Our front shock shaft runs through our Airbag. We got a cease and desist from a lawyer representing one of the Hot Rod companies that patented that design. Simply showed them documentation that we had built that design in 1983. Never heard from them again. 

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