Most getting into c.v.t. mods don't realize how the theories of modifying the movable sheave face or the channels are so different causing differences in flexibility for tuning to different trail conditions. For those riding flat ground one set-up might be OK, but for me I ride from 3000ft. to 14,000ft. routinely using the same engine, transmission and final drive assemblies so rely on the ability to change the c.v.t. ratio and up-shift rate for the trail conditions of this area.
Arnie works with the kiss theory while others are focused on specifics without thought to simple flexibility.
For instance why would you machine anything (channel or face) then add taller weights to effect the ratio? Why not do 'no' machining and use shims to increase the ratio to magnify engine torque produced?
Then when the shim limit is reached and you want more of the same feel-good do machining to run in combination with shim(s)?
Here's another deal: The stock ratio when new is @ 2.5:1 and we raise the ratio (like increasing the tooth count on the rear motor cycle sprocket) with shims, or machining, or different diameter weights, or a narrow belt. I use all of these different mods in combination.
Raising the ratio is done by changing the distance between the movable sheave face and fix sheave face so the belt rides lower in the primary.
I can raise my ratio on a 660 to 3.75:1 as seen in a video I did years ago. This is not a good ratio to ride but available when the system is understood.
I ride a 3.54:1 ratio mostly with great torque magnification at take off. My Griz will jump off the line getting to 20 m.p.h. in 2 seconds and less than 30ft. and this is reliant on the angle of the stock cam-plate face in the cut cam-plate I use, the portion of the face inside the bend of the new tab.
In this set-up the higher ratio and shallower cam-plate face angle lets the engine spool up faster building engine torque so then at 20 m.p.h. the new cam-plate face angle is hit by the weight(s) for increased forward bite and lower cruising engine r.p.m.'s v the stock cam-plate face angle.
Why anyone selling c.v.t. mods would recommend not using a cut cam-plate for best performance is beyond my understanding, although I also understand most riders don't want to put in the time changing set-ups to learn their c.v.t. system choices.
Over the years I've learned Arnie's theories and installed them in my c.v.t., then recommended what I know is good to other members that installed these in their c.v.t.'s.
I eventually rode with members on the trails from Moab to 'Land Between the Lake' on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and not once did another member tell me Arnie's work and my recommendations didn't work exactly like they needed for their conditions and machine set-ups.
Some members run 25" tires and other run 27" tires with me running 26"ers and there is always a combination with Arnie's machining that works.
Another thing important to remember 'IS' years ago when James joined G.C. to promote his work James made an offer that he would send his set-up to a member currently using Arnie's, willing to run his set-up against Arnie's in their machine for a report back to the members here.
I called James and he never fulfilled his offer and became know as J.B.S., 'just because I said' here on G.C.
Deal seems different than James, maybe his theory is sound. If any member here tries his work I look forward to a review.
