Yamaha Grizzly ATV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

· Registered
2021 Grizzly 700 XTR, Coop45 sheave, Epi Gold spring,Ehs programmer and air lid w/ K&N, 27" zillas
Joined
·
184 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey grizzly folks, I haven't been on here in quite a while. Ive been spending alot of time at my property getting a little shed finished for a makeshift cabin. I was on fb grizzly 700 page a few weeks ago and someone said coops not doing sheaves anymore. I figured I'd ask here for the truth?

Also what's everyone's opinion on the guy on fb selling machined clutch kits ? I have a great understanding of how our clutch works and have a coops sheave and gold spring in mine but was wondering what others thought of this other guy sheave from fb? I think he goes by Andrew deal out of canada? Just curious if anyone is running it and their thoughts? One thing I noticed is it's not designed for each person's riding style. Kinda a 1 and done package deal. Heres a few pics for fun!
Property Tree Wood Camping Shade

Tire Wheel Automotive tire Vehicle Hood

Wheel Tire Plant Vehicle Automotive tire
Tire Wheel Land vehicle Vehicle Helmet

Tire Automotive tire Purple Wheel Tread
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,021 Posts
As soon as I started reading your post I knew you were going to say Andrew deal. He's the one that is full of crap saying that Coop doesn't do sheaves anymore because that's his competition he constantly puts it down and berates anyone that does any work other than his. Of zero respect for the guy. I would steer clear.

As a Canadian, we disown him just like Justin beiber or Trudeau. Lol
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,001 Posts
If you have any question about Arnie's work message him at his address listed at the bottom of his web site page;
Every now and then he might take a few days to reply, he does take a vacation or go riding every now and then.
Tell him I said hello.
 

· Grizzled Moderator
2014 Yamaha Grizzly 700 EPS
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
I've seen Arnie post machined sheaves he is selling recently. Don't take someone else's info about if Coop is still machining, go direct to Coop himself. As per Deal's kits, you will be paying for extra stuff you may or may not want. The two items that I couldn't care less about are the plastic secondary spring washers (gimmick) and wet clutch slugs. You also have to pay for a gold spring, not choosing your own spring rate. Deal's clutch kits seem to be tailored for mud riders, not trail riders, and the reason those stupid FB groups treat him like he is all knowing about clutch machining is many of the people on those FB groups are sheep.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
There’s a lot of misinformation in this post. I don’t believe I said coop wasn’t doing sheaves anymore, I have various different setups for my kits which include many different springs including epi, my kits are not just one setup for everyone. also I have two different versions of my sheave one is tailored for mud riders and one is setup for all around use. And my secondary washers are not plastic. Also I do all my own machining, I designed and tested my sheaves.
 

· Grizzled Moderator
2014 Yamaha Grizzly 700 EPS
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
There’s a lot of misinformation in this post.
To put the record straight, please feel free to share some data of your test results:

  • Numbers of where the secondary washers are beneficiary compared to a baseline
  • Modified torque results of your machined sheaves versus an OEM baseline
  • The results of the differences between your mud setup and "all around use" setup

You're the expert, prove it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
I emailed coop/Arnie about a month ago to inquire about a machined sheave. It did take a little bit before hearing back, but he does still offer his services and the price was very reasonable. I haven't had mine done yet, but probably will in the future.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
To put the record straight, please feel free to share some data of your test results:

  • Numbers of where the secondary washers are beneficiary compared to a baseline
  • Modified torque results of your machined sheaves versus an OEM baseline
  • The results of the differences between your mud setup and "all around use" setup

You're the expert, prove it.
secondary washers have been proven to to increase backshift, you can clearly tell a difference when running the machine.
my sheave runs at a 3:1ratio without the use of shims. Ive Had this kit on the dyno with several different machines, stock first generation grizzly 700 put out over 33 ft pounds of torque which is about 5 ft pounds more than stock.
my all around kit uses 1mm larger diameter weights with extra machining to the weight pockets to keep the 3:1 ratio this allows for a quicker shift out when compared to the stock 30mm diameter weights which in turn takes advantage of the grizzlies abundance of low to mid range power without having to rely on over rev which the grizzly does not like to do, in turn lowering your cruising rpm as well, and since the weights are a larger diameter they also increase top speed without having to modify your cam plate. Also running larger diameter weights allows you to be able to machine more material at the top of the weight pockets without having to worry about roller flop since the larger diameter is still able to contact the roller channel walls. There Is no material removed from the face of my sheaves other than the seal hump. Meaning the angle of the sheave is kept at the factory 12.5 degrees to match the angle on the belt and allow for better belt bite. This setup gives a huge boost in low to mid even on machines with factory tires. As for the mud setup, very similar to the setup described above but runs regular diameter weights to prevent the quicker shift out which the heavier tires don’t always like. Also allows for quicker back shifts and more weight selection.
hope that answers your questions.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,713 Posts
Oh No! Not another CVT war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ridgway81432

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,001 Posts
He's better than James as he replied with information, yet his work does closely mirrors James'.
For me Arnie's work is spot on and tunable for all riding situations with mirror changes of weights and cutting the cam plate.
For those that care cutting the cam plate has more benefits than simply increasing top speed. I use 3 different cam plates depending on what the day ride entails.
Also secondary washers are not needed as I proved to myself, but for those wanting to experiment try'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedRocket

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,021 Posts
He's better than James as he replied with information, yet his work does closely mirrors James'.
For me Arnie's work is spot on and tunable for all riding situations with mirror changes of weights and cutting the cam plate.
For those that care cutting the cam plate has more benefits than simply increasing top speed. I use 3 different cam plates depending on what the day ride entails.
Also secondary washers are not needed as I proved to myself, but for those wanting to experiment try'em.
Jim you and I but heads on here often, but I'll be there first to say, after spending hours reading all your description and explanations on here if your cut plates and weight codes etc. I respect your work much more than everything I've read on FB by Deal, and his shall band of minions that swear by his work.
You have given lots of great info, and tons of photos to back up your work. If you joined any FB groups and read the posts, movie can come close to his work, the competition are all amateurs with inferior work. First time I ever read this, I thought it was James lol
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
13,001 Posts
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,713 Posts
ALL of the ATV/UTV machiner's claim that they invented CVT mods while in fact if a person researched the origin of the mods they would find it started with snowmobiles.
Now days there is plenty of witchcraft, snake oil, Ouija boards, A$$ dyno's
and social media replacing actual R&D proof.
I know of only one machiner that owns dyno however even he blabbers some snake oil.

My unqualified 2.0162¢
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Jim you and I but heads on here often, but I'll be there first to say, after spending hours reading all your description and explanations on here if your cut plates and weight codes etc. I respect your work much more than everything I've read on FB by Deal, and his shall band of minions that swear by his work.
You have given lots of great info, and tons of photos to back up your work. If you joined any FB groups and read the posts, movie can come close to his work, the competition are all amateurs with inferior work. First time I ever read this, I thought it was James lol
there’s no cvt war. It is what it is, I made a product and put a lot of effort into the cnc programming, production and testing of this product, people seem to be happy with the product and customer service. That’s all I can really do at this point, not knocking coops sheaves at all. He’s been doing this for years and has a clean track record, hasn’t ripped anyone off , hasn’t caused any drama and I respect the guy for that forsure. At the end of the day it’s competition, my intention was not to come on here and bash his work, which I didn’t and don’t plan to. But I will come on and defend myself against people attacking my character and product for no reason and no proof to back any of that up. I 100% agree that all the cvt mods started with snowmobiles and scooters. Changing things up a bit isn’t a bad thing. The dyno sheets were posted on the grizzly owners club. No I do not own a dyno or claim to.
I’ve had a lot of positive reviews from guys who have switched from other machined sheaves to mine.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
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.
Find me on Facebook and shoot me a pm, I’ll be able to explain the theory behind the larger diameter weights a bit more in depth, you clearly know what you’re talking about so I wouldn’t mind talking cvt with you
 

· Grizzled Moderator
2014 Yamaha Grizzly 700 EPS
Joined
·
4,472 Posts
@andrewdeal12 Thanks for coming back on and providing more detail. There are still items I have questions about but I don't want it coming off as controversial like what happens on the FB Yamaha Grizzly 700 group. And talk about A LOT of misinformation, that FB group is full of it, literally, to a point that I only go on there for some laughs and head shaking. That other Grizzly 700 user group is not any better as it has many of the same people spreading misinformation where they can't engage in a reasonable conversation without, uncalled for, personal attacks... it got old real fast. I've got pretty thick skin but got tired of braindead 2-year olds acting out.

I'd be interested in learning more about the data you have but I'm not going on FB for it. Seems like if you want to explain yourself, the testing you've done and theories you've come up with, with the potential for converting some on here, this is the appropriate place to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanadianKodiak700
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top