New Carbon Fibre Hood for the Pro to be released soon.

[Lorduss]

Not all of us have weight to loose either, if I shed 15 pounds from where im at now ill look like a crackhead.

 

[Timbre]

Then start a thread on weight loss and exercise.

A 3rd negative rating . . .wow . . really?

 

[Scott]

Ease up sledhead.....In a thread about sled weight loss, it would seem any weight loss is relevant. It's always been part of those conversations in the past and Timbre's post was not out of line.

 

[Scott]

Not all of us have weight to loose either, if I shed 15 pounds from where im at now ill look like a crackhead.

Me too.

 

[BallsDeep_5280]

I'll buy the left and right side panels separately to save that 1$.

 

[LoudHandle]

I'll buy the left and right side panels separately to save that 1$.

They would get even, when they double charge for shipping. LOL

 

[4GR8X]

Ease up sledhead.....In a thread about sled weight loss, it would seem any weight loss is relevant. It's always been part of those conversations in the past and Timbre's post was not out of line.

Agree.

Have fun, Craig.

 

[Spaarky]

How much weight would you save with the CF tunnel? would you gain a ton of strength??

 

[LoudHandle]

How much weight would you save with the CF tunnel? would you gain a ton of strength??

According to the parts I've weighed from a couple parted out 155" tunnels.

The stock aluminum parts totaling 5167 Grams = 11.4 #'s

The Carbon Equivalent (assuming the same thickness) totaling 3100.2 = 6.83 #'s

So a net savings of 2066.8 Grams = 4.56#'s

Also Carbon will be from 2 to 10 times stronger in the same thickness.

 

[Spaarky]

According to the parts I've weighed from a couple parted out 155" tunnels.

The stock aluminum parts totaling 5167 Grams = 11.4 #'s

The Carbon Equivalent (assuming the same thickness) totaling 3100.2 = 6.83 #'s

So a net savings of 2066.8 Grams = 4.56#'s

Also Carbon will be from 2 to 10 times stronger in the same thickness.

I suppose the other advantage would be during ride, lack of snow retention so to speak??? that would be a huge weight savings.

 

[icr]

I suppose the other advantage would be during ride, lack of snow retention so to speak??? that would be a huge weight savings.

Yeah, although this is offset by the reduced cooling and need for a larger cooler.

 

[AKtoad]

The one CF chassis I have delt with was trashed after half a season. It was a C3 XP chassis, that was enough to ensure I would never have one.

 

[Spaarky]

I don't know why I got all excited. It's easier getting drugs across the border, than sled parts.

 

[ak]

They claim the carbon parts are 30% less weight then the aluminum parts it replaces. That is minus the cooler, unless my math is wrong there's only 3 to 4 weight saving. Add a bigger cooler than there's little to be lost.

 

[LoudHandle]

Yeah, although this is offset by the reduced cooling and need for a larger cooler.

In reality you can run a smaller cooler with more surface area. My preference (from my research to date) is the CMX extrusion, because it has cooling fins on both the outside and the inside and as a result has more surface area which results in a better heat exchange between the Snow to the Glycol. Plus the extrusion is extruded from a structural aluminum alloy adding to the strength of the tunnel.

Unlike the flat, weak, low surface area stock extrusions.

With a thermally efficient extrusion you can further reduce the quantity of anti-freeze needed to cool the engine which is far heavier than the cooler weight itself.

 

[LoudHandle]

I don't know why I got all excited. It's easier getting drugs across the border, than sled parts.

I have no experience with the drug thing, but sleds and sled parts have never been an issue for me.

 

[icr]

In reality you can run a smaller cooler with more surface area. My preference (from my research to date) is the CMX extrusion, because it has cooling fins on both the outside and the inside and as a result has more surface area which results in a better heat exchange between the Snow to the Glycol. Plus the extrusion is extruded from a structural aluminum alloy adding to the strength of the tunnel.

Unlike the flat, weak, low surface area stock extrusions.

With a thermally efficient extrusion you can further reduce the quantity of anti-freeze needed to cool the engine which is far heavier than the cooler weight itself.

I agree the coolant is heavier than the cooler material, I assumed everyone knew a larger cooler would include more coolant. I'm aware of the advantages of the cmx offerings, but don't believe using it will offset the lost cooling advantage of an aluminum tunnel without going to a larger cooler.

 

[LoudHandle]

I agree the coolant is heavier than the cooler material, I assumed everyone knew a larger cooler would include more coolant. I'm aware of the advantages of the cmx offerings, but don't believe using it will offset the lost cooling advantage of an aluminum tunnel without going to a larger cooler.

My point was; it does not need to be larger, to be more efficient and effective.

The stock coolers are very inefficient and do a very poor job of thermal transfer despite the entire tunnel being aluminum and an additional heat sink.

 

[Spaarky]

I have no experience with the drug thing, but sleds and sled parts have never been an issue for me.

I was being a smart Azz. It does seem that more and more companies don't want to ship across the border, though. I have always had good experiences, just took quit a while.

 

[icr]

The stock coolers are very inefficient and do a very poor job of thermal transfer despite the entire tunnel being aluminum and an additional heat sink.

That was my point as well. A more efficient cooler might not be enough to over come the loss of cooling going to a carbon fiber tunnel from aluminum because the stock coolers are already borderline.