New Polaris Pro R

[Rockwood]

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

Hard to tell in the pic, but it looks like a steel insert the shock threads into, but it looks like the threads start at the horizontal line on the shaft (hehe), and the distance between the top and bottom  of the clevis doesn't seem to be enough to recess it much.

 

[Sand Shark]

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

Double Clevis action.  There design looks a little different than what Shock Therapy is doing. 

 

[Rockwood]

Double Clevis action.  There design looks a little different than what Shock Therapy is doing. 

Those clevi will break, they’re single shear, blah blah blah. :biggrin:

 

[Sand Shark]

Those clevi will break, they’re single shear, blah blah blah. :biggrin:

LOL!  The clevis doubter is preparing for the VIP treatment to look at the corporate demo production car.  

 

[Rockwood]

LOL!  The clevis doubter is preparing for the VIP treatment to look at the corporate demo production car.  

Shaddup troll!

 

[Schmidty]

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. 

That was us, and we are getting ready to release both replacement eyelets and retainers for the Pro-R and Turbo-R very soon. Production is gearing up, and prototypes have been being put through the paces with a few design changes along the way to improve both of the end products.. IMO ours will be the strongest eyelet available, which will be both user friendly, and will not limit travel. 

 

[megadesertdiesel]

its funny to look back a year ago at some of the comments and see how wrong some of you were.  The new Pro-r seems like a legit machine, with some more weight to her that actually makes the suspension work and not just buck you down the trail.  Hopefully my wife will let loose of that money i make and let me buy one this season.  

 

[CampfiresNbrews]

Pretty sure I saw a few that had broke at the top of the Clevis where the shock shaft connects. Not sure where Matlocks broke. So maybe not a problem with Clevis itself but more so with the shock shaft and the side loading forces happening there? To much leverage perhaps from having limit straps? Anyways maybe just a freak thing. My buddy just picked one up a month or so ago and we’ll keep an eye on it and tell him to forgo the straps. 

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

Well this guy has been saying shock shaft issues. Not all of us were dead set on the Clevis being the problem. Although I still think Polaris should have done it the way RG is doing it but I guess there’s a patent preventing them from doing so. 

 

[DTA]

.

 

[NIKAL]

.

 

[Rockwood]

So, I get that track changes aren't the best thing in the world...

But Is it really worse than having no travel or being super wide?  A 77" vehicle would be a liability on a lot of trails where absolute suspension travel doesn't matter as much. For desert, yep, width is king, no debate there.

For things like cornering, most of what you lost on the inside wheel drooping is gained on the outside wheel compressing, so I don't think the track width change is as big a deal when actually driving.

Fully drooped out, yeah, track width has changed a fair amount, but it's fully drooped, what load is there on the tires for scrub and track change to really matter?  Once you get close to static ride height, where well over 90% of the driving occurs, track width really doesn't change much.

 

[DTA]

.

 

[Rockwood]

I think one of the bigger issues is the loss of traction as the suspension travels. Also it would affect the handling as well. I have felt it first hand in the UTVs I have owned with radius rods. I will add, the scrub and track change is progressive through the travel, its not just instant at full droop or bump.

I would also argue, when I drive offroad, my suspension is nowhere near ride height 90% of the time.

Probably doesn't matter to most people or consumers. 

Because of scrub?  I wouldn't be surprised if this is the cause of RZR bumps...

Sure, but it's not linear.  As the control arm angle increases, the rate of track width change increases.  Track width change will be the most extreme the closer to full droop it gets, which is also when the tire is loaded less.

I'd say it's closer to 90% than you think.  Fully cycling a suspension isn't very comfortable.  Even over whoops, you're generally not suuuper far from ride height. 

In the dunes, I'd almost guarantee it unless it's just constant driving down Sand Highway.  Or you're Larry Enticer... :biggrin:

Chevy Trucks, on the other hand, NEVER near ride height in the commercials... :biggrin:

 

[DTA]

.

 

[Rockwood]

4 minutes ago, DTA said:

I havent been to the dunes in probably 15 years.

Plaster City isn't known for being smooth. 

This is where we play: 

Ah yeah, that place is bumpy.  Someone should run a bulldozer through there... :biggrin:

Fixed camera shows there's not a huge amount of track width change under most circumstances though.  Not a Pro R, but similar setup.

 

[DTA]

.

 

[Rockwood]

Yeah that's also the front end, the rear had a ton, because of the radius rods. And the Pro R apparently has more than the X3.

I was using that as an example of the suspension not being at ride height 90% of the time. I don't have that car anymore and never put a camera on the rear because it's boring. But I'll tell you what, you felt it in every corner when you were unloaded.

Front and rear have about the same length arms. Rears are slightly longer, but have to deal with the trailing arm pulling the tire forward. There probably isn’t a marked difference in most terrain there either.

I’m sure you did, how much of that was track changes though is hard to say. I regularly switch between a trailing arm and multi link vehicle, there’s always a loss of traction when the suspension is drooped out because there’s nothing on the tire. Offroad suspensions with tons of travel are always gonna suck cornering, radius rods or semi trailing arm.

As for other things like rear steer, the reason most auto manufacturers went away from semi trailing arm is specifically because of snap oversteer due to bumpsteer. ST might sell correction kits for the RZR Pro R, but that’s because he can. I guarantee he won’t for the Speed: there’s no bolt on part you can get to ”fix” it. Can Am uses the middle link to control toe at the hub independent of the trailing arm. Pro R uses that weird rod running the length of the trailing arm as a sorta “bump steer” to counter the suspension’s desire to rear steer (effective? Dunno). Semi-trailing arm has none of these. I have a feeling there’s going to be some feeling of “tank slapping” due to rear steer on single wheel bumps, as well as people looping it trying to make a hard turn during G out.

Fixing one symptom doesn’t mean you’ve cured the disease. All suspensions have compromises. ST’s fixes are likely countering Polaris engineers’ attempt to cure some roll steer as toe in is beneficial to countering this. 

 

[DTA]

.

 

[Rockwood]

I disagree, i've only felt bad cornering in the RZRs and X3s I've had. They dont plant like a trailing arm or solid axle car.

In a straight axle I had pretty awesome cornering. In trailing arm cornering was pretty good even with no rear sway bar.

View attachment 44495

View attachment 44496

Word.  Most of the traction difference I attributed to weight distribution, but that doesn't really line up with a solid axle car (other than it's probably overall a pig compared to the bug/SxS).  Only one way to find out. :biggrin:

 

[DTA]

.