R
Auto doors glued on
Are you talking about the gm and Chevy truck doors being glued on.
Are you talking about the gm and Chevy truck doors being glued on.
another shaft failure
- Thread starter Flygti32
- Start date
F
If you're worried about balancing, buy two of the kits and put one on each end of the shaft. Install the clamping portion of the two 180 degrees apart.
Jeesuz, its just to allow one to keep the damn sled on the snow until whatever Polaris comes up with for a fix becomes available.
We're not talking space shuttles here...
FYI. The kit comes with a clamp for each end.
Your logic is flawed, that is like having the tires and your car / truck out of balance a bit so you jack one wheel up and rotate it so it is 180 degrees opposite the other. What will the ride be like as you drive down the road (assuming you do not have the differential in the middle and they stay 180 degrees out)? It is just not a good practice. Yes the shaft rarely sees 4000 RPM in a mountain sled and it is a relatively small diameter but why strap on a known Imbalance to start with, when some shafts are already coming apart.
My take on it is: Check your glue! If it is set up hard they likely got it mixed correctly and likely got the correct amount applied. Check both stub ends for wobble if they don't wobble then just ride the Damn thing like you stole it! Save your money for something else you need to have. No need to introduce a imbalanced clamp bandaid that may cause a perfectly good shaft to fail.
willikers...what does two "independant wheels" have to do with one "continuous" shaft...
i mean an "intended continuous" shaft...lol..
I was drawing on an experience most people have experienced, and it has the same effect on the shaft. On the shaft the imbalance is doing the same thing as the wheels do on the car. Yanking it around and causing stress's that it was never intended to have to deal with.
well considering the "track" is only on a "portion" of the drivers at any given time and the drivers are connected to the shaft isn't the shaft actually in a continuous state of inbalance in a perfect circumstance..??..like having a gob of rubber way out there flopping around the shaft..
Last edited:
NO, It is much more consistent than you describe it to be. I may be more particular than most, because I have a balancing machine at my disposal at work. I was simply pointing out that the clamp the one individual was producing was no where near balanced and as such puts more stress on the stock drive shaft than leaving them off. Additionally if the glue is cured hard your shaft is fine anyway. Back to topic.
Yes , any insight ?
I'm sure this is repeat info...The information that I have received is that there was an error in machining (shaft-end and housing) along with adhesive, I believe is what I was told. This information came from me speaking with Chris at Carl’s directly. That’s all he told me and I did not need to know any more information than that. Chris stated that this is a quick fix and the sled will have a failur right away [obviusly] and Polaris is responding.
Maybe by this time Polaris is able to identify the group of sleds that were shipped to customers with these shafts that fail? IMO, the fix is quick and should not cost the customer any $$$, just a little down time or delay in picking up their sled from the dealer.
Maybe by this time Polaris is able to identify the group of sleds that were shipped to customers with these shafts that fail? IMO, the fix is quick and should not cost the customer any $$$, just a little down time or delay in picking up their sled from the dealer.
polaris dealer response
I emailed the dealer I bought my sled from about the A-arms and shafts and this was their response,
Todd
Only a few a arms required replacement . We replaced any units prior to customers picking up the snow checks. We had only 12 machines out of 104 that were effected.
The drive shaft issue is still under review by Polaris engineers . The interference fit of the drive stub into the axle is in question on a production run of this part by a supplier. They are in the proccess of identifying the effected units then coming up with a solution. Hopefully next week . We have replaced 3 failed units thus far
I emailed the dealer I bought my sled from about the A-arms and shafts and this was their response,
Todd
Only a few a arms required replacement . We replaced any units prior to customers picking up the snow checks. We had only 12 machines out of 104 that were effected.
The drive shaft issue is still under review by Polaris engineers . The interference fit of the drive stub into the axle is in question on a production run of this part by a supplier. They are in the proccess of identifying the effected units then coming up with a solution. Hopefully next week . We have replaced 3 failed units thus far
F
The jury is still out if it is in fact only the adhesive that is the problem. Since these guys with new sleds are right on the cusp, if not already, of being able to ride them, nobody wants to wait a month or more for a new/improved shaft to surface from Polaris. The shaft is, as installed, pretty damned balanced. Adding a few ounces equally to each side should be paltry. Bottom line, insurance and you can ride it without (hopefully...i have not heard yet of a "kitted" driveshaft failing) until such a time your pretty new Polaris parts arrive. Heck, it may be 6 weeks or? Are you saying if your glue is soft, leave the sled in the garage?
G
Looks like another one bites the dust. My friend in Grand Prairie AB just bought a new pro 163. Went for a trip this weekend and after 30 miles, the shaft came apart. Will try to get some pics and details....
Here is a clue as to what is the problem. Every time I post the Lords 406 specifications, together with the factors of safety that should have been used for full stress reversals on the driveshaft, POLARIS HAS IT ERASED.
I can see all activity and what is put up or erased... nothing of yours has been erased.
Polaris simply does not have the ability to erase things on this forum... and the moderators/admin have not.
Here is a list of all of your posts that you've made.... maybe you've misplaced it??
CLICK HERE
Polaris simply does not have the ability to erase things on this forum... and the moderators/admin have not.
Here is a list of all of your posts that you've made.... maybe you've misplaced it??
CLICK HERE
Last edited:
Yes, you have posted your calculations and repeated how they are complete idiots. If this is all true, how do you explain how they managed to survive all of the spring testing without having these issues, yet all of a sudden they are falling apart?
WITG,
I know you have it stuck in your mind that the drive shafts should not be bonded...and lots of data that you post along with it... but you are assuming you know what adhesive they are using.
Skibreeze is onto it... It is not a faulty design... just a screw up in the application/mixing of the adhesive (whatever that is) and/or the assembly of the shafts. It is also possible that the adhesive mfg supplied a defective batch for the assembly of SOME of the shafts.
Fact is... most of the driveshafts out there are not failing... some with turbos.. most stock... If they were a defective design or incorrect use of adhesive... we would see this forum literally flooded with photos of 100's of broken driveshafts.
I know you have it stuck in your mind that the drive shafts should not be bonded...and lots of data that you post along with it... but you are assuming you know what adhesive they are using.
Skibreeze is onto it... It is not a faulty design... just a screw up in the application/mixing of the adhesive (whatever that is) and/or the assembly of the shafts. It is also possible that the adhesive mfg supplied a defective batch for the assembly of SOME of the shafts.
Fact is... most of the driveshafts out there are not failing... some with turbos.. most stock... If they were a defective design or incorrect use of adhesive... we would see this forum literally flooded with photos of 100's of broken driveshafts.
The shaft that I saw yesterday had hard sealant in the grove of the stub, but there was no trace of any on either side, which I'm assuming is necessary for enough surface area to hold well.
Similar threads
