• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

2016 Pro RMK Pics

RMK-King

Super-Moderator
Dec 25, 2007
1,928
1,374
113
North Dakota
This is what the 2016/17 RMK could potentially look like.


First one "White" is Tyler Backus Axys 800HO ProX MTN conversion and the 2nd one "Black" is Boost-It's Axys 800HO MTN Turbo project. It would be fun to put a oem '15 RMK tunnel and suspension on one to see how they compare in weight, '16 could be the yr of a sub 400lb MTN sled with 160HP ;).
 

Attachments

  • pol1.jpg
    pol1.jpg
    89.3 KB · Views: 47,974
  • pol.jpg
    pol.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 37,322
  • pol3.jpg
    pol3.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 16,970
  • pol4.jpg
    pol4.jpg
    118.2 KB · Views: 4,318
Last edited:
B

Bacon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,639
1,352
113
Napoleon, ND
I find it interesting that the Cat guys are trying to narrow the running boards and the Poo guys are trying to widen them. Wonder what those sleds measure at their widest compared to stock. Sick sleds.
 
D
Feb 7, 2014
31
5
8
Revelstoke, BC
I find it interesting that the Cat guys are trying to narrow the running boards and the Poo guys are trying to widen them. Wonder what those sleds measure at their widest compared to stock. Sick sleds.

Pro RMK 32"
Pro Climb 35"
Summit XM 36"

SnoWest did a complete diagnosis back in Dec 2013 measuring every little dimension possible including rider positioning according to the ski centres and rear skid axle. It was something I used to help me purchase my 2014 Pro RMK last year as most sleds have remained relatively unchanged dimensionally since then. Being that Polaris has the widest stock ski stance 39" and narrowest body dimension 32" and after a year on my 14 Pro I can't really remember a time that I had an issue "panelling out" like the other mfg's sometimes do. I actually even switched to the Alt Imp 36" stance and still had no issues. Food for thought. I hope the Axys stays the same or narrower and would love to see a narrower stock ski stance.
 

mountainhorse

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2005
18,606
11,814
113
West Coast
www.laketahoeconcours.com
Practical problems arrise with an a-arm type front suspension for width...

On the PRO RMK... The lower arms are practically touching each other at the bulkhead... not much to narrow there.

If you make the arms much shorter than 36"... then you run into issues of radical camber change through the range of motion if you want to keep a reasonable amount of travel.



.
 

LoudHandle

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 21, 2011
3,882
2,764
113
Valdez, AK
Practical problems arrise with an a-arm type front suspension for width...

On the PRO RMK... The lower arms are practically touching each other at the bulkhead... not much to narrow there.

If you make the arms much shorter than 36"... then you run into issues of radical camber change through the range of motion if you want to keep a reasonable amount of travel.



.

While that is true with the current symmetrical (mirrored) design of A-arm and the centerline design. One could achieve both long travel and a narrower stance by going to a asymmetrical design where they over lap each other. This would allow an even narrower near snow bike width with two skis and still give you 10-12" of travel if desired. Food for thought at least. This design would lend itself well to your wish list future Polaris offering.
 

bryceraisanen

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Mar 5, 2011
988
177
43
36
Lol, while im diggin what your sayin... at what point do we just hop on the snowhawk?
 
Premium Features