Subscribe Today

Need a cure for poor performance?

Want to bash brands? Go ahead on this board. Profanity, personal attacks or sexual references will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

Need a cure for poor performance?

Postby pearson » January 17th, 2002, 8:49 am

Hey Elk, your funny!!! "I hope Yamaha never goes out of business, it's entertaining to watch them release 1 piece of crap after another" HMMMMMMMMM- Viper #1 selling sled this year, now a 145-150 Hp 4 stroke sled thats at least 80hp better than the other 3 sounds to me like your a wee-bit jealous there chief. And if it's a little bit heavier than an SRX(550-580, and at Amsnows shootout a ZR800 EFI weighed in at 550+lbs) and 65% more torque than a 800 Twin, watch out. The only other Manu that could match Yam's RX-1 is Cat if they use that Hayabusa motor. Now go take that RX-1 off your wallpaper on your computer!!!! Yam's not going anywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!
pearson
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: July 13th, 2001, 1:26 am
Location: 1368 miles from Ely, MN- Montgomery, NY

Need a cure for poor performance?

Postby Elk » January 17th, 2002, 2:50 pm

I'm sure the RX-1 will become the best four stroke available, but Yamaha's classifying it as ultimate performance on their site. I'm bashing the excessive hype more than the sled itself.

pearson
Now this is why I call it the BS-1. You should at least get your BS right. Yamaha says that the "BS-1" has 65% more LOW END torque and that isn't even correct when you look at the numbers. But let's just cover maximum torque. The R-1 engine produces 82 ft/lb of torque, peak. The ZR 800 is about 100 ft/lb. Now if I am correct, the gear down is 10,000 rpms down to 8,500, which would be a 15% reduction in gearing. 82 + 15%, being generous, only ends up being 97 ft/lb.

AM Snow's 572 pound weight for the ZR800 is wet: 2 quarts of oil, 5 gallons of gas and all the other fluids. The 550 pound weight that everyone's assuming the "BS-1" will weigh is totally dry. Oh yeah, they weighed the SRX in at 614, wet. So if the "BS-1" weighs 10% more, it's wet weight would be about 660 pounds. The total difference would end up being about 90 pounds.

Here's a link to a post that explains a lot of the torque issue: [URL]http://www.amsnow.com/msg_threadshow.asp?forumid=24&MessageID=278663&pagenum=1&slug=blank[/URL]
-----------------------------------------------------------
My sled 1995 ZR700 Not my web site but a good one for Mainers:[url]http://www.sledmaine.com/[/url]
Elk
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: August 8th, 2001, 1:30 am
Location: Maine USA

Need a cure for poor performance?

Postby NorthernSkunk » January 17th, 2002, 7:54 pm

Same sh!t is goin on at amsnow too lol. I don't get what they are hypin either, lots of numbers missin yet. And I haven't sat on it yet either lol.

And how come all of a sudden a heavy sled is ok? The yamaha guys are sure makin it sound like its the next "in" thing. To me heavyy is heavy, especially in the snow. If that sled goes like crap in the powder or any powder I bet they blame it on the a-arms lol.

once they do get these 4 strokes performing better though, the costs are gonna sky rocket. Just think of the money you could spend.
Na i'm done with you, your to much of an ass for me!

Your on a need to know basis and since you never come out here you don't need to know....
NorthernSkunk
Member
 
Posts: 5676
Joined: May 13th, 2001, 4:48 am
Location: 2015 XRS 800 E-TEC SKI-DOO


Previous

Return to Trash Talkers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron