Joined
·
53 Posts
Isnt Coop's mod 2 the ramp/channel milling as well?
21 Grizzly Xtr Mods help
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Nope.
Coop mod #2 is a modified cam plate to regain top speed when shims are used.
Mod #3 is the movable sheave belt surface being machined. Coop does not machine the channels.
Here is a stock sheave vs my coop machined sheave for comparison.
-Stock is 2.45:1 initial cvt ratio
-Machined is 2.9:1 with a fresh belt.
I'm currently @ 3:1 with an older belt
In my case adding a 0.5 mm shim would bring me to about 3.15:1
Joined
·
53 Posts
So what does the ramp/channel milling achieve? Is it a different way to get top speed back like Coops cam plate or does it change the ratio like sheave machining?
Joined
·
12,693 Posts
That's the million dollar question James didn't want answered years ago.
About 10 years ago he was a member here and offered anyone running a COOP machined sheave one of his for free trial. I messaged him I would be the test subject but then he changed his mind.
He reported a higher ration for better low end pull, his theory was to remove material from the channel near the center of axis. Some ordered his work but to my knowledge nobody ever did a detailed analysis of his product. He also sold different weight and shape weights to run in combination with his machining theory so with so many new parts those trying his work didn't know how to measure what did what.
THEN his product theory trying to produce what COOP produced was multiples in dollars required.
The c.v.t. system is very sensitive to very small changes and many went with COOP for many reasons.
COOP would answer questions from all, yes there were times he was away from his shop so replies were later to some than most, but with James he became known as 'Just Because I Said' without answers many needed before adding his work to their machine.
To answer your question James increased the distance in the channels for the weights to travel, then said he increased the depth of the channels.
I decided to use COOP because I trusted him and it turned out everything he said was true, and his work was exactly like what I wanted. Then with COOPS work I learned to run mods #1, #2 and #3 in combinations: 31 for a very high ratio producing best low end pull from magnified torque, #2 to change the point of influence for up-shift at the point of highest torque produced for magnification and best forward bite for acceleration with #3 providing most of the improved influence change throughout the range of motion.
Then with COOP's theory I learned how changing the weight and size of the weights improved the over-all setup for best low end, best forward bite and very high m.p.g. from lower cruising speed engine r.p.m.
And once my set-up was done the total expense was much less than 1/2 of what James wanted without answering questions.
Try calling James for details about his work
Joined
·
53 Posts
Thanks for that info. I have seen testimony after testimony of people with Coop's that are extremely pleased. Ive seen 1 person on youtube with Hunterworks who switched to a Deal's and said it worked way better (could of just been matched better to what he wanted which is why you need bigger sample size) and only 2 people running Deal's total. Now I understand what people have been meaning by Just Because I Said since he wont explain the theory on the channel milling. The Mainville couple on youtube took her clutch to an older gentleman out in Eastern Canada who did the same ramp milling, I believe, in his garage.That's the million dollar question James didn't want answered years ago.
About 10 years ago he was a member here and offered anyone running a COOP machined sheave one of his for free trial. I messaged him I would be the test subject but then he changed his mind.
He reported a higher ration for better low end pull, his theory was to remove material from the channel near the center of axis. Some ordered his work but to my knowledge nobody ever did a detailed analysis of his product. He also sold different weight and shape weights to run in combination with his machining theory so with so many new parts those trying his work didn't know how to measure what did what.
THEN his product theory trying to produce what COOP produced was multiples in dollars required.
The c.v.t. system is very sensitive to very small changes and many went with COOP for many reasons.
COOP would answer questions from all, yes there were times he was away from his shop so replies were later to some than most, but with James he became known as 'Just Because I Said' without answers many needed before adding his work to their machine.
To answer your question James increased the distance in the channels for the weights to travel, then said he increased the depth of the channels.
I decided to use COOP because I trusted him and it turned out everything he said was true, and his work was exactly like what I wanted. Then with COOPS work I learned to run mods #1, #2 and #3 in combinations: 31 for a very high ratio producing best low end pull from magnified torque, #2 to change the point of influence for up-shift at the point of highest torque produced for magnification and best forward bite for acceleration with #3 providing most of the improved influence change throughout the range of motion.
Then with COOP's theory I learned how changing the weight and size of the weights improved the over-all setup for best low end, best forward bite and very high m.p.g. from lower cruising speed engine r.p.m.
And once my set-up was done the total expense was much less than 1/2 of what James wanted without answering questions.
Try calling James for details about his work
EDIT: I could be way wrong on this but maybe the lightening of the clutch JBS style is like how the tuners making high hp turbo 4cyl cars would go to a much lighter flywheel. Coop's way changes the ratio like swaping sprockets on a chain drive which changes the torque applied for a given rpm... where lightening the clutch doesnt change the ratio/torque applied but rather tries to just get the rpm's up quicker which would affect wheele speed. Also would make the rpms go down faster when off the throttle, and thats if the machining is affecti g it enough like swapping to a lighter flywheel. Maybe that would mean something in a mud hole if you want to get your wheele speed up really quick as fast as possible but high wheel speed is not always a good thing when in the mud hole. I could totally be wrong on all of this, just trying to work it out in my head.
I've run Coop45 sheaves on two of my grizzlies and was very pleased with the results, I can't speak for the others but I figure if I'm happy with it, I stick with it. When my 2022 SE comes in, I'll be ordering my 3rd setup...
Joined
·
53 Posts
If mine comes on time its Aug 25th. EHS intake adapter/ais delete will go on right away then after break-in shipping clutch off to Mr Cooper or Mr Deal. Sounds like both guys have really happy customers. Im leaning towards Local instead of cross border. This was never meant to be a Who makes a better kit post, just more of trying to get a bigger sample size from Mr Deal customers since Mr Cooper is already proven.
Joined
·
12,693 Posts
COOP also removes material lightening the sheave weight when he is raising the pulley ratio at take-off to magnify/multiply the engine torque produced. COOP's work on the belt face side allows more change than James' theory.
What you do with the added torque and where is up to you, knowing its there is the key.
We don't care which you pick, this all boils down to which system is more flexible in more situations. Notice there are many more on one side of the fence.
Joined
·
53 Posts
Cant go wrong with whats proven to perform
Joined
·
9,165 Posts
Done right sheave face machining will not result in top speed loss. The cam plate mod can extend the top speed Channel/ramp machining will not result in top speed loss. However channels can be extend to add top speed.
Using just the shim mod does result in top speed loss. The camplate mod can restore the loss.
Andrew is combining some of each style of machining. He is also machining channels to use a larger roller weights. This will do nothing for low end but will help gain top speed. It seems that he is also reducing the weight of the secondary.
This guy is really pushing the envelope and doesn't seem to fear experimenting. He seems to have skills and ambitions He could be the "Guy" to machine a new helix for us.
There are number of guys out there experiment with Yamaha style CVTs. Yamaha CVT are much more limited that most other styles but they are also much more reliable.
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
It's funny you mention Cass Mainville's machined Sheave. That's my buddy Brian that was in that vid, he lives 10 min from me here just outside Sudbury Ontario. I'm running one of his sheaves myself, a kind of one off version. He did great work, but had since sold his mini mill and got away from the machining. Too many customers trying to blame home and his work for them putting those bike back together wrong and screwed things up. That plus the constant bashing by JBS and his weasels...I mean customers.
If I weren't running my BF clutching sheave, my hands down choice would be Coop's. I tried to buy one of Deals sheaves, I was willing to try it, but he won't sell it alone, he only sells a "kit" which is his oversized weights the sheave, and secondary spring. He doesn't offer a choice of weight of the rollers, or a choice of secondary spring. It's only his one recommended kit. As anyone here will tell you, it's not a one size for all. Not everyone is looking for the same end result. I just found Deal very arrogant and hard to talk to on our fb group. I lost all respect for him and acouple of his buddies when they started making fun of a couple members that were just asking questions and didn't understand CVT mods. No way to treat guys , especially when they just want to learn.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
Oh fyi, it's actually cheaper to ship your sheave cross boarder than it is to ship it withing the country. Thank you Canada Post for screwing your customers. Lol
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
Joined
·
12,693 Posts
Now that you've added an intro thread, and have a Kodi on the way and mentioned after a break-in period;
1) Its good to put a few miles/km's on a new machine to get the feel for the stock set-up in the conditions you ride, to then know what you like, and what you want better.
2) Its also good to do mods one at a time. These machines can be very sensitive to small changes, especially with mods to the c.v.t. If you change one part and something isn't like you want you know what to change back, and there's this other 'thing' to understand about mods.....
3) Its the expense, say with tires. You are in the middle of a performance thread with us talking low end, top speed, forward bite in combination with higher distance traveled per tank of gas by mods to the c.v.t.
All of this about c.v.t. mods and what you end up with is dependent on the tires you want, maybe you want better than stock and maybe not, and better might be taller which changes the relationship/ratio of number of turns of the secondary to the number of rotations per kilometer traveled thus effecting the desired mods in to primary and secondary pulleys.
Here's what I went through; the stock 660 came with tires stated to be 25" diameter but were actually 23.5" true. Over a measured mile (U.S.A.), 5280ft. distance with a tire circumference of 74"s the axle turned 856 revolutions. Big Deal? well......
I added new tires stating 26" diameter thinking I gained only 1" compared to the stated sizes of each tire but tire manufacturers tell white lies, the new tires were actually 26.5" tall true for an actual change of 3"s in diameter with the new tires having a true circumference of 83"s. Then over the same measured mile the axles turned 763 times or 11% fewer times/per.
Once the wet-clutch is locked with a proper secondary spring for no belt slip, the result is the engine turns fewer total r.p.m.'s per mile with taller tires. Due to the expense of tires which aren't changes for different day rides by most, you may want to ride your machine some to determine what tires will be best then decide how you want to change the c.v.t.
4) When new to these c.v.t. mods most suggest starting with the simple stuff to learn what does what, and shims are the simple stuff. The shim(s) widen the distance between the primary sheaves letting the belt start closer to the primary shaft center of axis resulting in a higher pulley ratio for magnified torque at low engine r.p.m.
With shim what you gain down low is given away up top in speed lost, shim is COOP's mod #1. The 660 is much more flexible so learned what adding shim did going .5mm's at a time. Most want a package deal so go straight to machining, but I wanted to see what the top limit was for the c.v.t. so I decided to do small changes requiring many trips into the system, and this was due to my local conditions and the need to sometimes make changes daily for different system requirements. Many don't need this system understanding but I do.
I learned how to set the system up for total haul ass up a mountain burning 3 gallons over a short run of 5.8 miles and I mean HAUL ASS! and with a few changes to the c.v.t. I can back off the high engine r.p.m. to cruise all day at 34 m.p.g. loaded heavy the next day.
From shim I learned the cut cam-plate application, then how to change the weight of the weights and the weight diameter to change the influence of the cam-plate in the system for best forward bite and high m.p.g.
As the shim and cam-plate mods have limits I then got with COOP to use his machining which fit into the middle of my plan, I use his machining to raise the pulley ratio, then add shim with the machined sheave to raise the ratio some more. The newer machines aren't as accepting as the older 660 but some have learned how to install combination for best performance.
Is this bestest a big deal, not always but sometimes its nice to get the mostest.
Joined
·
9,165 Posts
Agreed Brian did some great and innovative work. I know a couple riders with his sheave. Can't blame him for getting away from those A$$Hats.
Joined
·
53 Posts
My wife owns a salon and she says there are some in the industry who look down and talk bad on other techs/instructors. She always says that it makes no sense to bash/not help since it affects the industry as a whole when customers are ill informed on services or have bad experiences. She says there are plenty enough customers out there for everyone no need to be that way. When everyone gets better the whole industry grows
Joined
·
53 Posts
Ah ok, 1 way lets you fine tune for your riding while also option to make changes if you swap to bigger tires (more shim) or if your just doing trail riding with wifey on back, throw the heavier weights back in and maybe a softer spring for better cruising rpm and smoother backshift. And the other option is a more specific application that has no tuneability. Am I starting to sorta understand how these mods work?
Joined
·
12,693 Posts
Your guess is kinda close....but you haven't done a mod to learn how each part influences the entire system, or what the limit of each mod is.
Yes a softer spring decreases the back-shift rate but will also let the the belt slip with wifey (more weight) added. Yes the heavier weights lower the engine r.p.m. for cruising if you have the torque at the lower r.p.m. Horse Power is produced with high r.p.m. so focus on torque. Shim does magnify torque but maybe not enough for what you need/want.
I learned how the shim changed the system then added the right spring to prevent belt slip, then changed the weights and the cam-plate for the tires installed before any c.v.t. mods were done.
I picked what I thought was the best machining technique and worked that into the system, removing some shim for low end influence and cutting another cam-plate for the weights and top end influence I liked.
Go slow and learn the limits of each mod.
Joined
·
53 Posts
The camplate is the 1 item i dont know what the process is as far as whats being done to it. To my understanding, Coops cam plate mod is what adds top end speed if you have the ponies for it.
The kit Deal sells actually includes slugs and "slippery" washers too. And as you said, is pretty expensive and doesn't really allow for fine tuning for yourself unless you spend even more money on what you want. I honestly don't know what to think about what Deal is doing and it seems to make some sense but his kit seems to be clearly intended for areas where the main riding is mud/water bogging, wheelies and drag racing open areas. Meaning, good low end multiplied torque (face machining), quicker engagement (slugs) and then the potential for adding top end speed by way of the channel machining and larger roller weights. The quicker engagement is not something I've personally felt was needed and honestly, that is going to wear down your wet clutch plates quicker as well. Top end speed is not something I desire either as I'm almost always in low to mid-range. So the slugs and oversized roller weights are something I don't necessarily want or even need and I'm not running size 31" tires that are very heavy. And as reogem stated, Deal and someone else are playing with machining of the secondary... which is also something a user on GC has been doing for a couple years now but has not publicized it yet. Also, JBS is the one who came up with the slippery washers for the secondary. I've always just made sure my springs can rotate and never saw a need for those washers.
One item that Deal has not addressed, which Jim touched on, is what has his mods done to MPGs? Every time I've tried to get an answer on that, no one knows or seems to care. Again, that tells me those users are not out strictly doing trail rides where MPGs are something that becomes important. Not to save money on fuel, but to know you can get to that 100+ miles range in a day if needed because there are no fueling stations around.
This is what the cut cam plate looks like, not my picture but saved it from someone posting it, most likely on here, GC. I've personally never played with one and others in this thread might be better at giving a full understanding of where it makes a difference.
Joined
·
53 Posts
The part of me that wants 31s and go handlebar deep wants the Deals kit but I tend to be too ambitious in my thinking. Its why I have a 18hr 2stroke 250 that is going up for sale to make room for a 4wheeler. I wouldnt snorkel till warrenty is up anyway and I might not want one by then. I think Im gonna take yalls advice and stick with stock tires and play with kodiak and grizzly weights with shim/more shim/no shim then get sensible 27or 28 zillas, and not big out laws, only then mess with the mods 2 and 3.
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
Join the discussion
