Premium

Wait, 129s ended up with a 1.25" ripsaw-1 ??

double post

For sure, but taken in context with the other items I'd imagine that 858 suddenly seems worth waiting for vs the 600.

It's kind of a perfect storm for people to back out of their Catalyst snowchecks: 1) The big bore 858 that everyone has been clamoring for will be available next year. 2) Terrible start to the winter...makes you wonder if Textron could've delivered all these sleds before December 1st how many fewer people would've backed out. 3) Changing/uncertain economic landscape with sky-high interest rates.

Now that would be the BOSS secondary, correct? I haven't had any issues at all with my BOSS secondary on my 998 turbo but I always torque the bolt to spec with belt off. The stock secondary on my 15 R-XC is a Team TSS-04, so it just has the shaft spacer,some washers and bolt. The whole clutch comes off the splined shaft.

I did not. Was dry as a bone from the factory and by the time I discovered the wear I elected to remove the float. I used to grease the old keyed shaft floating secondaries, of course.

Here's my experience: My 15 R-XC had a small amount of "float" that also caused it to destroy the splines on both the jackshaft and Team secondary. I ended up replacing both the Team secondary and the jackshaft, and then removing a spacing washer to tighten it up and remove the float. I saw no difference in top speed or belt life.

That would make sense if the R-XC is using 8 tooth drivers for more terrain clearance at the track shaft.

A "fellow lover of snowmobiling", reveling in the plight of other snowmobiling enthusiasts amidst a bad winter. I can't think of a worse take.

I've wondered how much the racers like the BOSS secondary. While great for consumers due to lack of adjustment needed, how does it perform compared to the "legendary" Cat reverse cam roller for example. Are racers doing torsional conversions on the BOSS to get more speed?

You think you'll be able to coax more top end out of these Catalysts? I haven't looked...what kind of speeds are the R-XCs geared for out of the box?

I thought it was interesting that Herf said they can run a significantly softer valve package in the Catalyst vs Procross. Also interesting the impromptu drag race in the second vid at 5:40... the Catalyst surges ahead by a few sled lengths before the 4 stroke starts steadily reeling him in. I think Arlaud's 4 stroke had the highest top speeds at Pine Lake last year?

I guess I don't understand how anyone expected this motor to be more powerful? Once we found out it's basically the same as previous generations except with an 800 bottom end, 125 hp should be no surprise. What likely contributes to the sled feeling stronger is a combination of lighter chassis and low inertia belt drive, along with perhaps a re-calibrated fuel mapping strategy.

Herfindahl and Arlaud out with some great content recently!

Now, if we can get this version of the Lions every game...

Seems like what may allow Cat to do this is the Torque Control Link (TCL). In theory this eccentric bearing adjustment would have no effect on clutch C-C and alignment. Instead the movement would be translated to the engine mounting, where positional change is less pronounced due to it being further away from the belt case. The other possibility (and perhaps in addition to the above) is that the eccentric hub movement is in an arc that complements the C-C distance of the clutches. So the secondary clutch moves up and down in an arc that maintains C-C and alignment. For this to be the case maybe there is rotational movement allowed at the motor mount? I don't actually know, I'm just throwing out ideas.

Yeah fair enough... I'm removing them maybe two to three times a year

I've used a few different styles of spring tools but I find myself always going back to the string/twine/wire method. Loop it through the spring hook where you want it the wrap it around your hand....Just has always seemed faster to me with more control.

Yes that is exactly what it is for, to allow the engine to still get air even if the exterior intakes get blocked.

If the Procross was right from the start it wouldn't have seemed so dated. If the Procross didn't erase all the momentum from the original M-series it wouldn't have seemed so dated. If the Procross hadn't dragged on for a ridiculous 12 model years before a successor it wouldn't have seemed so dated. Etc. Lots of mistakes along the way. That aside, IMO the Procross is a bona-fide stalwart. It has an incredible terrain racing pedigree and is tough as nails. It just didn't check enough boxes to justify a 12 year life cycle and it pissed people off. Especially considering the first two years were a debacle in terms of quality. Let's see what the Catalyst does... there's a lot riding on it.

Yeah those statements are more damning. Although, I wonder if it's primarily the dirt side that's lagging? The Alterra 600 was introduced to relatively little fanfare and the XX has been out of the conversation for awhile now. I'd like to think the Catalyst represents a bright spot in the outlook, but who knows.

The restructuring would trigger the re-evaluation of assets. There are several brands under the TSV umbrella, without seeing the financial statements at this point its impossible to say where exactly the impairment charges are occurring and what kind of impact it has on Arctic Cat specifically.

This new system probably fits with one of the design philosophies the engineering team employed for Catalyst... reducing fasteners, overall part count, weight, etc. I would like to imagine Herf would've exposed this area of failure many times over if it was truly design related. Krom's assembly error theory sounds more likely to me, at this point at least.

Looking at the pics, they moved the rear arm tunnel mount back a solid 4"+

You weren't kiddin' Very nice!