Snowmobile Fanatics banner
1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
I personally would love to see the triples come back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
I bet if you did bring one back for a limited build you would have more people upgrading from their older XLT and such triples to the new triple. MInd you I'm not sure how many people are out there that are stuck on triples and won't buy anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,184 Posts
Triples are cool but i dont see them being back in production anytime soon. Twins can make as much hp and are cheaper to build. Maybe a limited edition snocheck only xcr triple could get a few polaris faithful happy again. But i dont think it would do to well with the majority of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,356 Posts
It's all about economies of scale. For one, as monster jay already said, the twins are cheaper to build. Secondly, with polaris making all their own liquid cooled motors, it would be big bucks to set up a seperate production line for a sled that I guess would be rather low in sales volume. The return on investment just wouldn't be there.

Athough, it is absolutely the right thing to do (I voted yes), it will never happen. Hang onto your triples boys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
I am in agreeance with Jay. Twins are for 90% of the people out there and the riding they do. In my opinion, they would not be much better off than they are now if they built a triple.

The first reason is that the sled would weight more. Isn't this what we've been trying to reduce for the past 20 years? I hear everyone using the argument of power to weight ratio with the triples because triples can make more power than their triple counterparts. It is a good argument, but it is irrelevant because after a certain weight, it doesn't matter how much power you have because the sled becomes all together too heavy to handle. People want something lightweight, maneuverable, and universal. Those things are something triples did not do well at.

The second reason is that it is still a two stroke. The EPA is breathing fire down the sled manufacturers' necks. I think the money would be better spent on the development of lightweight four-stroke engine technology. While it is true that a triple will make more / more consistent power than a twin, that era is gone now and I don't think there would be as many people buying triples as it may seem.

We can do just about everything with a twin, that a triple of yesteryear could do. Best yet, twins are geared towards the riding style of most snowmobilers out there and that riding style being the corner to corner acceleration of the trails and the fast pace of the ditches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
" I am in agreeance with Jay. Twins are for 90% of the people out there and the riding they do. "

Only because people no longer have a choice

"In my opinion, they would not be much better off than they are now if they built a triple.
The first reason is that the sled would weight more. Isn't this what we've been trying to reduce for the past 20 years? "


No. The reason the triple motor died was the constant harangue from the sledwhores (Definition: professional storytellers who get their stories published in slick, glossy magazines). THESE were the people constantly whining and sniveling about how a Mach Z or XCR simply could'nt hang with a MXZ or XCR-440 in the whoop-tee-doo's. If you have the older magazines, the sledwhores were always comparing the higher performance machines with the little zippies, rather than a comparison of the features that specific sled category had. Compare like machines, not disparate machines.
Weight is no longer the issue. Many sleds of today weigh as much or more than the older triples. That is a fact. With today's advancements in composite and plastics technology, the weight can be significantly brought down with an increase in strength. Just remember the funky non-plastic Pol used to make their hoods from? Hoods can be made from vacuum formed Kydex (just an example), now that would be much lighter and much stronger than from just a few years ago.

"I hear everyone using the argument of power to weight ratio with the triples because triples can make more power than their triple counterparts."

Uh...I think you meant "triples can make more power than their twin counterparts"? The triples will be smoother, due to more firing cycles than the twins, and yes, they'll make more H.P. Also, an extra cylinder allows for the other cylinders to be smaller=durability. Back when a 650 was about the largest thing you could get, it was due to the materials technology. When Nicasil came out, cylinder size began increasing, but a cylinder was still limited to around 300cc each. Now we see cylinders approaching 500cc, all because of the advancements in ceramics technology providing lubrication to the piston skirts.

It is a good argument, but it is irrelevant because after a certain weight, it doesn't matter how much power you have because the sled becomes all together too heavy to handle.
"People want something lightweight, maneuverable, and universal."
Please see comments on sledwhores in first paragraph.

"Those things are something triples did not do well at."

An apple versus orange argument, you are comparing todays twin against 10 Y.O. technology, doesn't hold water.

"The second reason is that it is still a two stroke. The EPA is breathing fire down the sled manufacturers' necks."

Incorrect. The EPA sets a goal, the manufacturer meets it. Polaris already did with their cleanfire tech. I have written before to look at Bomardier's Evinrude E-Tec. It is a 2-stroke and it is much cleaner than any 4-stroke tech out there right now, actually, the current crop of 4-strokes cannot even compete against it. Power to weight, and Bombardier knew exactly where to take it.

"I think the money would be better spent on the development of lightweight four-stroke engine technology."

Will never happen due to the inherent design, unless a turbo is added, then you argue against yourself with the "but it is irrelevant because after a certain weight, it doesn't matter how much power you have because the sled becomes all together too heavy to handle.", statement.


"While it is true that a triple will make more / more consistent power than a twin, that era is gone now and I don't think there would be as many people buying triples as it may seem.
We can do just about everything with a twin, that a triple of yesteryear could do."


If you compare todays twin against old-tech triple, but with the right mods to the chassis, you can't even compete due to more power.


"Best yet, twins are geared towards the riding style of most snowmobilers out there and that riding style being the corner to corner acceleration of the trails and the fast pace of the ditches."

Which is what power is all about yes?

This is an example of the flawed reasoning when asking for a manufacturer to "bring back" something. Old vs new mindset. I propose a 600cc triple using E-Tec injection technology and computerization to maintain optimum engine performance. I also propose a 1200cc triple using same. One geared for people who like lightweight machines or who do not have the body strength to control a heavier machine. The 1200cc will simply have slightly larger componenets, so will only weight 10-15 pounds more.
Along with this new tech, the same focus should be placed on the chassis using the latest in plastics and composite tech where applicable. The rest should be focused on solutions covering the weight issue, which can be addressed with better materials.

The problem is cost. A sled can be built with 130 H.P. at 500 pounds wet, but another cylinder adds mass in terms of the machinery and increased cooling necessary to accomodate it. The manufacturers can look at what mods are being done by the more successful modders out there and incorporate them, just like they are doing right now.

I believe a high H.P. triple can be manufactured that will weigh only a fraction more than the current crop of twins, if someone wants to do it. Apply the latest in technology to both the engine and chassis, and the results will be fantastic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
Sorry pigboy. That picture does no justice. That is a first gen bigblock twin. The lightweight smallblocks make way more power than that thing and way a considerable amount less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,356 Posts
Erick, if they applied then the same wieght and power advances to the triple, wouldn't you right back you started from again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,384 Posts
I think they should build a 900 triple based of the current 600 twin, just add another cylinder to it. This is what the did in the late 70's and early 80's and it saved the company. Polaris built the 500 triple which was just there 340 twin with another cylinder added on. Polaris was having some hard times and the 500 triple pretty much saved the company because they sold so well and were cheap to produce because they were based off a motor that was currently in production. If they did it this way it would cut the cost and make alot of people happy. But thats just my 2 cents, I know it will never happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
" I am in agreeance with Jay. Twins are for 90% of the people out there and the riding they do. "

Only because people no longer have a choice
Not true. People do have a choice and that choice is not to buy. The late 1990’s had the strongest sales in the snowmobile industry and this was the time that everyone was turning out big twins. People bought them. People wanted them. Sales of triples went down the drain. I talk to the people that work at these places, I know.

"In my opinion, they would not be much better off than they are now if they built a triple.
The first reason is that the sled would weight more. Isn't this what we've been trying to reduce for the past 20 years? "



No. The reason the triple motor died was the constant harangue from the sledwhores (Definition: professional storytellers who get their stories published in slick, glossy magazines). THESE were the people constantly whining and sniveling about how a Mach Z or XCR simply could'nt hang with a MXZ or XCR-440 in the whoop-tee-doo's. If you have the older magazines, the sledwhores were always comparing the higher performance machines with the little zippies, rather than a comparison of the features that specific sled category had. Compare like machines, not disparate machines.
Weight is no longer the issue. Many sleds of today weigh as much or more than the older triples. That is a fact. With today's advancements in composite and plastics technology, the weight can be significantly brought down with an increase in strength. Just remember the funky non-plastic Pol used to make their hoods from? Hoods can be made from vacuum formed Kydex (just an example), now that would be much lighter and much stronger than from just a few years ago.
When we had triples, we did not have the suspension technology we do now. All those big shocks and suspension parts add weight and counter some of the differences in weight between the triples and twins. Look at the XCR 800 (Last made in 2003 I believe) and the latest Yamaha triples. The engines used most of the same technologies that most of the newer twins used, and those sleds were all tanks compared to the twins of the same era. Sure, I agree that there are newer technologies out there that we could use to reduce weight, but that doesn’t change that a triple has more cylinders, more pistons, and more material which adds weight.


"I hear everyone using the argument of power to weight ratio with the triples because triples can make more power than their triple counterparts."

Uh...I think you meant "triples can make more power than their twin counterparts"? The triples will be smoother, due to more firing cycles than the twins, and yes, they'll make more H.P. Also, an extra cylinder allows for the other cylinders to be smaller=durability. Back when a 650 was about the largest thing you could get, it was due to the materials technology. When Nicasil came out, cylinder size began increasing, but a cylinder was still limited to around 300cc each. Now we see cylinders approaching 500cc, all because of the advancements in ceramics technology providing lubrication to the piston skirts.
Yes, that is what I did mean. It was early for me when I wrote that. I’m not arguing any points you’re making here.

"It is a good argument, but it is irrelevant because after a certain weight, it doesn't matter how much power you have because the sled becomes all together too heavy to handle. People want something lightweight, maneuverable, and universal."
Please see comments on sledwhores in first paragraph.
The truth is in the sales numbers from the late 90’s.


"Those things are something triples did not do well at."

An apple versus orange argument, you are comparing todays twin against 10 Y.O. technology, doesn't hold water.
I’m comparing it to four year old technology – 2003. In a same sense, build up a triple 600 H.O. using the same parts as the Polaris 600 H.O. twin and the same technology and you’ll still have increased weight. The engine weight will increase by a little less than 1/3 of the original. Want to get all that power out? You’ll now need three pipes instead of two…more weight again.

"The second reason is that it is still a two stroke. The EPA is breathing fire down the sled manufacturers' necks."

Incorrect. The EPA sets a goal, the manufacturer meets it. Polaris already did with their cleanfire tech. I have written before to look at Bomardier's Evinrude E-Tec. It is a 2-stroke and it is much cleaner than any 4-stroke tech out there right now, actually, the current crop of 4-strokes cannot even compete against it. Power to weight, and Bombardier knew exactly where to take it.
Obviously bombardier doesn’t know where to take it because I don’t see it in any sleds???? More money is spent trying to meet EPA goals than you may think. Again, I talk to the people who work in the industry so I have first hand knowledge. The EPA goals are the first concern when a new engine is developed. It is a concern beyond anything else. By using 4-Stroke that concern can be greatly reduced. Anything that burns oil will not be cleaner than a clean 4-stroke which doesn’t burn oil. Burning oil = not clean. I don’t care who you are, you just cannot argue that fact. Until I see some EPA ratings and specs for this e-tec engine, I just do not believe it.

"I think the money would be better spent on the development of lightweight four-stroke engine technology."

Will never happen due to the inherent design, unless a turbo is added, then you argue against yourself with the "but it is irrelevant because after a certain weight, it doesn't matter how much power you have because the sled becomes all together too heavy to handle.", statement.

I’m talking about two cylinder supercharged 4-strokes. Don’t think a lightweight, clean, and relatively cheap two cylinder 4-stroke supercharged engine making 150 HP can be made? Think again. While a supercharged 4-stroke and a triple 2-stroke may make comparable power, weight the same, and cost the same, I still think the money is better spent developing cleaner burning 4-stroke technology.

"While it is true that a triple will make more / more consistent power than a twin, that era is gone now and I don't think there would be as many people buying triples as it may seem.
We can do just about everything with a twin, that a triple of yesteryear could do."


If you compare todays twin against old-tech triple, but with the right mods to the chassis, you can't even compete due to more power.

There is still all that weight and I don’t care if there is 200 HP. I’m not superman and I don’t pretend to be. I don’t want to be throwing that much weight around all day.


"Best yet, twins are geared towards the riding style of most snowmobilers out there and that riding style being the corner to corner acceleration of the trails and the fast pace of the ditches."

Which is what power is all about yes?

This is an example of the flawed reasoning when asking for a manufacturer to "bring back" something. Old vs new mindset. I propose a 600cc triple using E-Tec injection technology and computerization to maintain optimum engine performance. I also propose a 1200cc triple using same. One geared for people who like lightweight machines or who do not have the body strength to control a heavier machine. The 1200cc will simply have slightly larger componenets, so will only weight 10-15 pounds more.
Along with this new tech, the same focus should be placed on the chassis using the latest in plastics and composite tech where applicable. The rest should be focused on solutions covering the weight issue, which can be addressed with better materials.

The problem is cost. A sled can be built with 130 H.P. at 500 pounds wet, but another cylinder adds mass in terms of the machinery and increased cooling necessary to accomodate it. The manufacturers can look at what mods are being done by the more successful modders out there and incorporate them, just like they are doing right now.
You’re right, cost is probably the number one reason. I don’t know about you but I’m always demanding more out of my sled in terms of technology but I certainly don’t want to pay for it. If triples come back, expect costs across the board to rise.

I believe a high H.P. triple can be manufactured that will weigh only a fraction more than the current crop of twins, if someone wants to do it. Apply the latest in technology to both the engine and chassis, and the results will be fantastic.
I really do not see it being as easy as you think it is. It would be awesome if we could get something like this but a guy has always got to wonder…”If they make a triple that weighs this much I bet they could make a twin with just as much power and it will weigh even less!” I know I, like a majority of others, would go for the sled that weighs less and makes more power.

Anyways, The focus around all snowmobile camps right now (with disregard to Ski-Doo) is 4-stroke technology. That is the future and that’s where we will be in the next 5 to 10 years and as much as I hate to admit it, Yamaha will more than likely lead the way too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
Originally posted by pigboy
[br]Erick, if they applied then the same wieght and power advances to the triple, wouldn't you right back you started from again.
No, you'd have a snowmobile that made approx. the same amount of power but weighed more. The overall weight would still be a concern, regardless of whatever the power to weight ratio is. You could mod both sleds and the triple would have a nice power advantage...but it would increase the weight even more. Any increase in weight is bad, bad, bad. Sleds in 500 pound or less dry weight arena are the preferred sleds these days. Only unless you drive in a straight line all day on the trail or lake do you not care if your sled weights more than 500 pounds. This is where you will have an advantage with a high performance triple. Manufacturers are doing whatever they can to reduce weight while at the same time making sure the sleds are not too expensive. Take for instance the RAW RMK. The integrated coolers in the rear tunnel help to reduce snow buildup by approx. 40 pounds, at the same time cooling better but not increasing the cost to produce the sled too great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,343 Posts
They need a big bore twin, if they chose to do that I would consider one for my next sled instead of a Rev. The whole reason I'm keeping my XLT is that I know we will never see a triple produced again. The twin I have now feels lighter, responds better and is faster than the two triples I had before. I'm a fan of the twin. A switchback 1000 would be a step in the right direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
As much as it pains me to say so the days of triples are dead. They wont be coming back, unless some independant maker desides to take a chance and start making them again. Regardless of what anyone here or anywhere else trys to say EPA pressure is what makes everything from Automobiles to snowmobiles the way they are. Take the Hemi, great motor high HP lots of troque.... BUT..... It got bad bad gas mileage, it was very heavy and it was not very clean. Now jump into the future with EPA regs, technology demands and such and take a EFI small block motor with a computer system that just by chiping you can make the same HP as an old Hemi with half the weight. The same goes for sled my friends. In a few years I doubt you will see many 2 stroke motors period, the pince from the EPA will just be too tight. 4 Strokes and fuel injection are what the future will hold. Like Erick said you can take a 2 cylinder 4 stroke and supercharge it, plus slap on a turbo if you so desire and have one hell of a lightweight high horsepower motor. Also the thing people forget to take into consideration nowdays is things like rider forwards sleds, engine placement and chassis set up.Look where the weight of the old sleds was, then take that and apply it to now, technology makes that weight felt alot less by the rider, thus less rider fatigue... I cant belive no one esle has taken this into consideration. Why would we want technology to go backward instead of forward???? Think about it people the furture is coming and I for one dont want to be mired int the past riding old sleds with old technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,138 Posts
The whole weight issue just doesn't hold water!! If it did no one would sell a single 4-stroke, anyone who thinks differently is a victim of clever advertising, because now all of a sudden "weight doesn't matter"!! And all of you who think that 4-strokes are the wave of the future, I got news for you, WHEN 2-strokes are finally out of the picture who do you think the EPA is gonna come after next?? To the enviromentals its not a 2 vs 4 stroke thing, its an internal combustion, carbon monoxide puking motor vs electric and solar power, plain and simple!! If you think I'm "crazy", "old fashioned", and "stuck in the past" heres a simple experiment to try, fill your 4-stroke sled up with gas, pull it in the garage, close all the doors and windows and fire it up and let it idle out the whole tank of gas while your sitting on the seat and then get back to us tomorrow and post the results....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
That and people still have the backthenforwardtonow mentality. They cannot equate three cylinders and new computer technology.

http://www.evinrude.com/en-CA/

It simply comes down to people unwilling to believe they can have their cake and eat it too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,943 Posts
Originally posted by ultrastud
[br]The whole weight issue just doesn't hold water!! If it did no one would sell a single 4-stroke, anyone who thinks differently is a victim of clever advertising, because now all of a sudden "weight doesn't matter"!! And all of you who think that 4-strokes are the wave of the future, I got news for you, WHEN 2-strokes are finally out of the picture who do you think the EPA is gonna come after next?? To the enviromentals its not a 2 vs 4 stroke thing, its an internal combustion, carbon monoxide puking motor vs electric and solar power, plain and simple!! If you think I'm "crazy", "old fashioned", and "stuck in the past" heres a simple experiment to try, fill your 4-stroke sled up with gas, pull it in the garage, close all the doors and windows and fire it up and let it idle out the whole tank of gas while your sitting on the seat and then get back to us tomorrow and post the results....
I didn't say current gen, naturally aspirated 4-strokes. I'm talking about future lightweight, supercharged 4-strokes. Now this has turned into a "twins vs. triple" two stroke debate to an "internal combustion vs. everything else" debate. I don't believe this is what the purpose of the topic was. [:)] And yes, the weight issue DOES hold water. I will not buy the current gen 4-strokes. Unless they can get the weight to something that is respectable with the two-stroke twins...unless of course the two-strokes fade away.

Anyways, I have my opinion, you have yours. We all have an idea of what we want. The kind of riding I do and the kind of riding you do are not necessarily the same and our machines have different purposes. That may be one of the reasons I ride what I ride and you ride what you ride. We are all snowmobilers in the end, no matter what powers our machines.
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top