Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:37:49 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
>>news:b-mcnQvh5uyhRguiU-KYiw@magma.ca...
>>
>>>As for rocks... Well it's like any machine. Put the wheels on the
>>>highest rocks to climb over or go around.( I don't climbs rocks for fun)
>>
>>ive met a few argo and argo type rigs on the trail in 6x6 and even 8x8
>>configurations. theyre a great all around machine, but my experience with
>>them has left me with the impression that they arent at home in rocks. im
>>not talking about crossing a rock here and there, im talking about in more
>>aggressive areas like daniel at uwharrie, or anywhere at tellico. while you
>>can make it go, it seems to require far more effort than i would want to put
>>into it. skid steer just is not effective in off camber rocky situations.
>
>
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem but it doesn't look like it has a
> lot of stretch for the wheels over big gaps and the ground clearance
> is about 6 inches or so.

I can see your concern on ground clearance but remember it's got
six wheels not four. those two extra in the middle make a big difference.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.
> Also I wonder how well it can climb hills at only 24 mph top speed. If
> you run out of grunt there's no where to go.
> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.
>


It doesn't need more power. The drive system is the same as a
snowmobile (primary secondary variable belt drive connected to a 2 speed
gear box) in low range, I doubt you'd be able to stall it. You'd
probably snap an axle before that happens.

In all honesty it's not perfect.
you want to traverse deep snow...buy a long track ski doo
you want to traverse large rocks.....build up a Jeep
You want to traverse large rough bodies of water....get a boat.
You want to get to that fresh venison...............buy all three above
or get an ARGO.

 

Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:37:49 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
>>news:b-mcnQvh5uyhRguiU-KYiw@magma.ca...
>>
>>>As for rocks... Well it's like any machine. Put the wheels on the
>>>highest rocks to climb over or go around.( I don't climbs rocks for fun)
>>
>>ive met a few argo and argo type rigs on the trail in 6x6 and even 8x8
>>configurations. theyre a great all around machine, but my experience with
>>them has left me with the impression that they arent at home in rocks. im
>>not talking about crossing a rock here and there, im talking about in more
>>aggressive areas like daniel at uwharrie, or anywhere at tellico. while you
>>can make it go, it seems to require far more effort than i would want to put
>>into it. skid steer just is not effective in off camber rocky situations.
>
>
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem but it doesn't look like it has a
> lot of stretch for the wheels over big gaps and the ground clearance
> is about 6 inches or so.

I can see your concern on ground clearance but remember it's got
six wheels not four. those two extra in the middle make a big difference.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.
> Also I wonder how well it can climb hills at only 24 mph top speed. If
> you run out of grunt there's no where to go.
> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.
>


It doesn't need more power. The drive system is the same as a
snowmobile (primary secondary variable belt drive connected to a 2 speed
gear box) in low range, I doubt you'd be able to stall it. You'd
probably snap an axle before that happens.

In all honesty it's not perfect.
you want to traverse deep snow...buy a long track ski doo
you want to traverse large rocks.....build up a Jeep
You want to traverse large rough bodies of water....get a boat.
You want to get to that fresh venison...............buy all three above
or get an ARGO.

 

Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:37:49 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
>>news:b-mcnQvh5uyhRguiU-KYiw@magma.ca...
>>
>>>As for rocks... Well it's like any machine. Put the wheels on the
>>>highest rocks to climb over or go around.( I don't climbs rocks for fun)
>>
>>ive met a few argo and argo type rigs on the trail in 6x6 and even 8x8
>>configurations. theyre a great all around machine, but my experience with
>>them has left me with the impression that they arent at home in rocks. im
>>not talking about crossing a rock here and there, im talking about in more
>>aggressive areas like daniel at uwharrie, or anywhere at tellico. while you
>>can make it go, it seems to require far more effort than i would want to put
>>into it. skid steer just is not effective in off camber rocky situations.
>
>
> This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
> surfaces it should have no problem but it doesn't look like it has a
> lot of stretch for the wheels over big gaps and the ground clearance
> is about 6 inches or so.

I can see your concern on ground clearance but remember it's got
six wheels not four. those two extra in the middle make a big difference.

> That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
> work for my needs.
> Also I wonder how well it can climb hills at only 24 mph top speed. If
> you run out of grunt there's no where to go.
> Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
> articulation.
>


It doesn't need more power. The drive system is the same as a
snowmobile (primary secondary variable belt drive connected to a 2 speed
gear box) in low range, I doubt you'd be able to stall it. You'd
probably snap an axle before that happens.

In all honesty it's not perfect.
you want to traverse deep snow...buy a long track ski doo
you want to traverse large rocks.....build up a Jeep
You want to traverse large rough bodies of water....get a boat.
You want to get to that fresh venison...............buy all three above
or get an ARGO.

 

Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:25:36 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:55lepv8ohpilv63f82uf1eisp64dovdp2i@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>>I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine.
>>
>>agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the polaris
>>front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
>>effective, i just dont like it.
>
>
> Why what is different about it?
> I know with the big Kawi you hold a lever in to keep it locked in.
> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?
>
>
>>>The Rhino
>>>seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
>>>handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
>>>the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
>>
>>the rhino articulates MUCH better, especially considering that the rear of
>>the ranger is on a swing arm. the 6x6 ranger is unstoppable in mud because
>>you have 6 wheels pulling. i think theyre about equal in incline/decline
>>with the ranger having the edge on traversing since its so wide. thats not
>>saying the rhino is "tippy", it sure doesnt seem that way......just that the
>>ranger is as wide as a house so basic physics dictates that it would be
>>harder to roll although neither would roll easily.
>
>
> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep? I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm but if all 6 wheels are powered that would give it some
> serious pulling power. No doubt if you hit mud all the time then you
> really want mud tires on whatever you have.
> On traversing sometimes the machine can handle more than the operator
> can. Many people can't climb rocks like you can but the machine is
> capable.
>
>
>>>Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)
>>
>>they sell arctic cat sleds for that. :-)
>
>
> No that's what they make Ski Doo's for. :)
> Still same position pretty much as a Quad even with the REV-1 design
> and now way can I afford an Elite. But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

Yea those Ski Doo Revs I've heard they revolutionized snowmobiling
Hence the Rev...get it...:-) Got.... to .....have .....one!!!!!!
The new rider position eliminates the bumps inherent with the older design.
I think the Elites are rated for "almost" 100mph but
alas it's only good for trail riding, I would guess.
I'd hate to get stuck in deep snow with one of them monsters.
>

 

Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:25:36 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:55lepv8ohpilv63f82uf1eisp64dovdp2i@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>>I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine.
>>
>>agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the polaris
>>front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
>>effective, i just dont like it.
>
>
> Why what is different about it?
> I know with the big Kawi you hold a lever in to keep it locked in.
> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?
>
>
>>>The Rhino
>>>seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
>>>handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
>>>the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
>>
>>the rhino articulates MUCH better, especially considering that the rear of
>>the ranger is on a swing arm. the 6x6 ranger is unstoppable in mud because
>>you have 6 wheels pulling. i think theyre about equal in incline/decline
>>with the ranger having the edge on traversing since its so wide. thats not
>>saying the rhino is "tippy", it sure doesnt seem that way......just that the
>>ranger is as wide as a house so basic physics dictates that it would be
>>harder to roll although neither would roll easily.
>
>
> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep? I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm but if all 6 wheels are powered that would give it some
> serious pulling power. No doubt if you hit mud all the time then you
> really want mud tires on whatever you have.
> On traversing sometimes the machine can handle more than the operator
> can. Many people can't climb rocks like you can but the machine is
> capable.
>
>
>>>Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)
>>
>>they sell arctic cat sleds for that. :-)
>
>
> No that's what they make Ski Doo's for. :)
> Still same position pretty much as a Quad even with the REV-1 design
> and now way can I afford an Elite. But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

Yea those Ski Doo Revs I've heard they revolutionized snowmobiling
Hence the Rev...get it...:-) Got.... to .....have .....one!!!!!!
The new rider position eliminates the bumps inherent with the older design.
I think the Elites are rated for "almost" 100mph but
alas it's only good for trail riding, I would guess.
I'd hate to get stuck in deep snow with one of them monsters.
>

 

Scooby Don't wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:25:36 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
> <JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:55lepv8ohpilv63f82uf1eisp64dovdp2i@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>>I looked atthe Ranger and it looks like a serious machine.
>>
>>agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the polaris
>>front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
>>effective, i just dont like it.
>
>
> Why what is different about it?
> I know with the big Kawi you hold a lever in to keep it locked in.
> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?
>
>
>>>The Rhino
>>>seems to have better articulation but how well these do in mud or
>>>handle still water and small streams will really be the key as well as
>>>the degree of incline/decline that they can handle.
>>
>>the rhino articulates MUCH better, especially considering that the rear of
>>the ranger is on a swing arm. the 6x6 ranger is unstoppable in mud because
>>you have 6 wheels pulling. i think theyre about equal in incline/decline
>>with the ranger having the edge on traversing since its so wide. thats not
>>saying the rhino is "tippy", it sure doesnt seem that way......just that the
>>ranger is as wide as a house so basic physics dictates that it would be
>>harder to roll although neither would roll easily.
>
>
> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep? I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm but if all 6 wheels are powered that would give it some
> serious pulling power. No doubt if you hit mud all the time then you
> really want mud tires on whatever you have.
> On traversing sometimes the machine can handle more than the operator
> can. Many people can't climb rocks like you can but the machine is
> capable.
>
>
>>>Now snow is a whole nother matter. :)
>>
>>they sell arctic cat sleds for that. :-)
>
>
> No that's what they make Ski Doo's for. :)
> Still same position pretty much as a Quad even with the REV-1 design
> and now way can I afford an Elite. But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

Yea those Ski Doo Revs I've heard they revolutionized snowmobiling
Hence the Rev...get it...:-) Got.... to .....have .....one!!!!!!
The new rider position eliminates the bumps inherent with the older design.
I think the Elites are rated for "almost" 100mph but
alas it's only good for trail riding, I would guess.
I'd hate to get stuck in deep snow with one of them monsters.
>

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:667fpv8u8n2kkecktd85di46i558trb9m9@4ax.com...
> >agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the
polaris
> >front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
> >effective, i just dont like it.
>
> Why what is different about it?

when you engage the front drive on any polaris, the front wheels still dont
pull unless the machine senses rear wheel slippage. this is basically
accomplished through using slightly different gear ratios (18% difference)
front and rear with cams that dont engage so long as the front wheels are
spinning as fast as the rear wheels. if the back tires slip almost 1/5 of a
turn more than the front then the front cams lock in and the front wheels
pull. as soon as there is no more rear wheel slippage the front cams
disengage leaving you with 2 wheel drive again. while this does make
steering a little easier, it takes away your ability to power steer on slick
surfaces when youre moving at speed. with this system there is no 4 wheel
engine braking either, its rear wheel only.


> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?

no, when the polaris locks in all 4 wheels pull. my problem with it is that
it doesnt lock in when you tell it to. for some this isnt an issue. for
me, when i lock it in front drive, i want the front wheels pulling right
_then_. again, in all fairness it serves many well and they swear by the
system. it just isnt the system for me.


> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep?

yup. the same principle applies here.


> I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm

cool points. :-) its also great for serious mudding. another advantage is
that it has the longer wheel base for going up steep hills (rear wheels) but
it also has a short wheel base for topping the hills (middle wheels) giving
it an awesome breakover angle.


> But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

yeah.....thats pretty insane!


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:667fpv8u8n2kkecktd85di46i558trb9m9@4ax.com...
> >agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the
polaris
> >front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
> >effective, i just dont like it.
>
> Why what is different about it?

when you engage the front drive on any polaris, the front wheels still dont
pull unless the machine senses rear wheel slippage. this is basically
accomplished through using slightly different gear ratios (18% difference)
front and rear with cams that dont engage so long as the front wheels are
spinning as fast as the rear wheels. if the back tires slip almost 1/5 of a
turn more than the front then the front cams lock in and the front wheels
pull. as soon as there is no more rear wheel slippage the front cams
disengage leaving you with 2 wheel drive again. while this does make
steering a little easier, it takes away your ability to power steer on slick
surfaces when youre moving at speed. with this system there is no 4 wheel
engine braking either, its rear wheel only.


> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?

no, when the polaris locks in all 4 wheels pull. my problem with it is that
it doesnt lock in when you tell it to. for some this isnt an issue. for
me, when i lock it in front drive, i want the front wheels pulling right
_then_. again, in all fairness it serves many well and they swear by the
system. it just isnt the system for me.


> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep?

yup. the same principle applies here.


> I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm

cool points. :-) its also great for serious mudding. another advantage is
that it has the longer wheel base for going up steep hills (rear wheels) but
it also has a short wheel base for topping the hills (middle wheels) giving
it an awesome breakover angle.


> But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

yeah.....thats pretty insane!


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:667fpv8u8n2kkecktd85di46i558trb9m9@4ax.com...
> >agreed. the biggest factor in my decision was that i dont like the
polaris
> >front drive system. many swear by it and think its great and i know its
> >effective, i just dont like it.
>
> Why what is different about it?

when you engage the front drive on any polaris, the front wheels still dont
pull unless the machine senses rear wheel slippage. this is basically
accomplished through using slightly different gear ratios (18% difference)
front and rear with cams that dont engage so long as the front wheels are
spinning as fast as the rear wheels. if the back tires slip almost 1/5 of a
turn more than the front then the front cams lock in and the front wheels
pull. as soon as there is no more rear wheel slippage the front cams
disengage leaving you with 2 wheel drive again. while this does make
steering a little easier, it takes away your ability to power steer on slick
surfaces when youre moving at speed. with this system there is no 4 wheel
engine braking either, its rear wheel only.


> But isn't Polaris a push button deal where it's a sort of LSD 4x4?

no, when the polaris locks in all 4 wheels pull. my problem with it is that
it doesnt lock in when you tell it to. for some this isnt an issue. for
me, when i lock it in front drive, i want the front wheels pulling right
_then_. again, in all fairness it serves many well and they swear by the
system. it just isnt the system for me.


> Well wasn't the original idea behind the HumVee that if it was wide
> enough soldiers wouldn't roll them like they did the *****'s style
> Jeep?

yup. the same principle applies here.


> I don't see why anyone would want a 6x6 unless they were using
> it on a farm

cool points. :-) its also great for serious mudding. another advantage is
that it has the longer wheel base for going up steep hills (rear wheels) but
it also has a short wheel base for topping the hills (middle wheels) giving
it an awesome breakover angle.


> But 150HP for a side by side sled.
> That has got to have some serious speed on the straights!

yeah.....thats pretty insane!


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3n7fpvgocumuasg53qg7tb5ltug8emub1g@4ax.com...
> My car is rated to tow 1,000 pounds according
> to the dealer.

the ratings are typically conservative ratings with the idiot factor being
factored in. with a little sense, you can safely tow a good bit above the
rating. i think the 6x6 comes in around 1500 pounds and that plus the
trailer weight would probably be pushing it. a 1049lb machine being towed
on a 200lb trailer (mine is grossly over-built which you can see in the
pictures) should be no problem.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com