[Madkawi750]

I never gave it a a whole lot of thought until the other night.
I was putting shims in my fathers 2012 grizzly 700le.
I had ridden my 2016 grizzly to his house and rode his back to my place to do the work.
I noticed how much slower his machine can go.
I have 1.5mm shims and a purple spring. His machine is stock.
His would drive so slow it would read 0mph on the speedo.
Mine is 3-4mph absolute slowest it'll drive.
After shimming his, it's even slower.

I had a 2009 700 with a machined sheave and it was awesome with slow low speed Control. That was 3 years ago and I assumed my 2016 would be this slow with a machined sheave as well, so I thought my 2016 was normal stock and just forgot about it.

What I'm asking I guess, is .. has anyone ridden a 2016 and an older grizzly back to back ? Did you notice a difference in the slow speed ability.
My belt ratio is about 2.75:1 which baffles me more, because my fathers is about 2.6-2.7 so mine should be slower.

We both have tires that measure 26.5" tall.

Mine has 1800 miles his has only 300 miles. (I know right.. a 2012 with only 300miles.. he bought it a week ago from an old guy)

Any thoughts ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[griz7]

I never gave it a a whole lot of thought until the other night.
I was putting shims in my fathers 2012 grizzly 700le.
I had ridden my 2016 grizzly to his house and rode his back to my place to do the work.
I noticed how much slower his machine can go.
I have 1.5mm shims and a purple spring. His machine is stock.
His would drive so slow it would read 0mph on the speedo.
Mine is 3-4mph absolute slowest it'll drive.
After shimming his, it's even slower.

I had a 2009 700 with a machined sheave and it was awesome with slow low speed Control. That was 3 years ago and I assumed my 2016 would be this slow with a machined sheave as well, so I thought my 2016 was normal stock and just forgot about it.

What I'm asking I guess, is .. has anyone ridden a 2016 and an older grizzly back to back ? Did you notice a difference in the slow speed ability.
My belt ratio is about 2.75:1 which baffles me more, because my fathers is about 2.6-2.7 so mine should be slower.

We both have tires that measure 26.5" tall.

Mine has 1800 miles his has only 300 miles. (I know right.. a 2012 with only 300miles.. he bought it a week ago from an old guy)

Any thoughts ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mine ran around 4-5km at its slowest, the tire's I have on are the HTR'S and are still the factory size but they seem bigger to me, I do a lot of towing and that was kinda to fast in the bad spots on the trail, I went with coops machine sheave and purple spring and now can just creep along towing and great in the rough trail riding, pretty happy with coops set up.

 

[BlackGrizz550]

I think they changed the gearing in 2016. Not sure if that makes a difference.

The biggest change may be the DOHC VS SOHC. The 708 does not seem to make as good of low end power as the older motor. Mine is stronger mid range and top end but it definitely has less down low. I drove a 2015 before buying mine and it had more pep down low.

 

[Chuggy500]

That is very interesting, I have a 2010 se and a 2017 se and I had noticed that my 17 se is painful to ride at very slow speeds when moving cows with calves from one farm to another, just can't travel at a constant slow speed, I was thinking it was the fly by wire throttle that made it so unpredictable at low revs, is your 16se like this also? However I haven't checked if there is a difference in the ratios of the 2 bikes, just assumed they were the same, I do however think there may be an issue with the FBW throttle surging at low speed.

 

[Madkawi750]

Haven't noticed any surging, it seems pretty smooth.
It's like it's just geared higher.
My 2016 is way more powerful feeling once you're moving over 3-4 mph, but it's not as touchy off the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[griz7]

That is very interesting, I have a 2010 se and a 2017 se and I had noticed that my 17 se is painful to ride at very slow speeds when moving cows with calves from one farm to another, just can't travel at a constant slow speed, I was thinking it was the fly by wire throttle that made it so unpredictable at low revs, is your 16se like this also? However I haven't checked if there is a difference in the ratios of the 2 bikes, just assumed they were the same, I do however think there may be an issue with the FBW throttle surging at low speed.

I didn't realize my 16 se was fly by wire throttle, I thought it was cable operated, Hmmm? I'm thinking the weights set up in the clutch in the 16-17 Grizzly might have something to do with the lower speed off idle.

 

[rick]

Are the clutch roller weights the same?

 

[griz7]

Are the clutch roller weights the same?

I believe the 16-17 grizzly are using 18 gram weights now, the 16-17 Kodiak that shares the same engine I think uses 20 gram weights or heavier which are set more for utility work and a lower engagement.

 

[Vincent]

I believe the 16 -17 Kodiaks use 30 gram
vs the Grizzly's 18 gram weights

 

[wheelsquad]

I didn't realize my 16 se was fly by wire throttle, I thought it was cable operated, Hmmm? I'm thinking the weights set up in the clutch in the 16-17 Grizzly might have something to do with the lower speed off idle.

Roller weights don't affect engagement speed. They only affect upshift once the primary gets spinning with some speed. At engagement it is not rotating at all and therefore the roller weights don't affect that.

It's your wet clutch shoes that affect engagement rpm. If you want a slower/smoother engagement, I would look into wet clutch slugs.

And if you want a lower starting gear ratio, you need to look into lowering your pulley ratio more.

 

[Madkawi750]

I have stock 18gram weights and my fathers machine has stock 20 gram the older machines came with.

They both feel like the engine rpm the wet clutch engages is the same. But it's just beyond here that the difference is felt. It's like his engages and starts driving. Mine engages and acts like a standard car when you're kinda riding the clutch before you fully let your foot off the pedal. It's like my foot is on the pedal until 3-4 mph. My fathers machine has that "foot off the pedal" feeling at 0-1mph.

Maybe it's all in the weights, but I'm skeptical because I ran 18gram greaseless in my 2009 grizzly and it would drive 0-1mph with ease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[griz7]

I have stock 18gram weights and my fathers machine has stock 20 gram the older machines came with.

They both feel like the engine rpm the wet clutch engages is the same. But it's just beyond here that the difference is felt. It's like his engages and starts driving. Mine engages and acts like a standard car when you're kinda riding the clutch before you fully let your foot off the pedal. It's like my foot is on the pedal until 3-4 mph. My fathers machine has that "foot off the pedal" feeling at 0-1mph.

Maybe it's all in the weights, but I'm skeptical because I ran 18gram greaseless in my 2009 grizzly and it would drive 0-1mph with ease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Are the 16-17 Grizz's drive by wire throttle?

 

[griz7]

Roller weights don't affect engagement speed. They only affect upshift once the primary gets spinning with some speed. At engagement it is not rotating at all and therefore the roller weights don't affect that.

It's your wet clutch shoes that affect engagement rpm. If you want a slower/smoother engagement, I would look into wet clutch slugs.

And if you want a lower starting gear ratio, you need to look into lowering your pulley ratio more.

Thanks for the info.

 

[wheelsquad]

I have stock 18gram weights and my fathers machine has stock 20 gram the older machines came with.

They both feel like the engine rpm the wet clutch engages is the same. But it's just beyond here that the difference is felt. It's like his engages and starts driving. Mine engages and acts like a standard car when you're kinda riding the clutch before you fully let your foot off the pedal. It's like my foot is on the pedal until 3-4 mph. My fathers machine has that "foot off the pedal" feeling at 0-1mph.

Maybe it's all in the weights, but I'm skeptical because I ran 18gram greaseless in my 2009 grizzly and it would drive 0-1mph with ease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

3mph for full wet clutch engagement is right where my 450 is at in low gear, with a JBS sheave. Keep in mind though that our speedometers are not super accurate at these low speeds. Have you run the 2 machines you're comparing side by side, without looking at the speedometers?

 

[wheelsquad]

Thanks for the info.

?

I'd wait to see what @dezz has to say. I'm just speaking from what I know on how the system is engineered. Others have way more practical and experimental experience with the Ultramatic than I do.

 

[Madkawi750]

Went for a trail ride today. My father was in front of me on his 2012, I followed behind. His machine was notably slower than mine in the trail. I had to keep coming on and off the throttle just to keep the slow pace he was crawling through the rough stuff. Then on the more open Trail, in high range, we were driving somewhere between seven and 12 mph on smooth fairly open trail. We were just sort of sightseeing and taking our time. Again I noticed he was able to put along much easier than I. I felt like I needed to stop and put my machine in low range. Wondering if heavier wet clutch slugs could make my machine engage slightly lower. Also wondering how much of a difference I would get with a machined sheave. I had a machine sheave in my older machine, so I know I can drive slow. But now comparing how slow my father's 2012 grizzly drives maybe the machine sheave wasn't all of the reason my 2009 crawled so well.
What is the lowest gear ratio that can be achieved with a machined sheave?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[wheelsquad]

Went for a trail ride today. My father was in front of me on his 2012, I followed behind. His machine was notably slower than mine in the trail. I had to keep coming on and off the throttle just to keep the slow pace he was crawling through the rough stuff. Then on the more open Trail, in high range, we were driving somewhere between seven and 12 mph on smooth fairly open trail. We were just sort of sightseeing and taking our time. Again I noticed he was able to put along much easier than I. I felt like I needed to stop and put my machine in low range. Wondering if heavier wet clutch slugs could make my machine engage slightly lower. Also wondering how much of a difference I would get with a machined sheave. I had a machine sheave in my older machine, so I know I can drive slow. But now comparing how slow my father's 2012 grizzly drives maybe the machine sheave wasn't all of the reason my 2009 crawled so well.
What is the lowest gear ratio that can be achieved with a machined sheave?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I read your original post again. You having a pulley ratio of 2.75 is pretty good. Something else must be going on. Sorry I was of no more help.

 

[Vincent]

So after reading this thread a short time ago, it really got me thinkin. How slow can my bike go at a consistent even speed? So after a stressful work week I decided to let off some steam with a quick 15 kms run threw forests and trails, and took the time to experiment with this concept.

So here it is. In Low range I can easily and consistently maintain a forward movement and my speedo shows 0 km/h. Out of curiosity I tried high range and again I was able to maintain 0 km/h on speedo . It actually only start to read anything at 3 km/h. So these speedo are far from accurate at low speeds. No surprise there. T'ill I verify how slow I can actually drive with my GPS, my guess is 2 km/h in Low and maybe a bit under 3km/h in high range. Witch is pritty damn slow.

Thought it was worth sharing.....

 

[Madkawi750]

Thanks.
I realize the speedo's are far from accurate at these slow speeds, so maybe using a number is a bad way for me to describe it.
I'm really thinking I'm going to order some wet clutch slugs and give them a try. I want a sheave as well, but for now the 1.5mm shims will have to do.
I'm really thinking the 2016 + models are not as slow capable as the older machines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[wheelsquad]

Thanks.
I realize the speedo's are far from accurate at these slow speeds, so maybe using a number is a bad way for me to describe it.
I'm really thinking I'm going to order some wet clutch slugs and give them a try. I want a sheave as well, but for now the 1.5mm shims will have to do.
I'm really thinking the 2016 + models are not as slow capable as the older machines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You've already checked your pulley ratio and that appears to be what you'd expect (2.75). The CVT components from the 686's are the same as your 16. But the wet clutch is different, as is the sub-transmission. The wet clutch in the new 708 is the same across all 708's, but different from the 686's. It will be difficult to get any objective data on differences in the wet clutches.

But you can get objective data on the sub-transmissions and see if that is the place of the difference. If I were you and really wanting to know, I would do a rollout measurement per an equal number of secondary rotations on your 708 and your dad's 686. That would objectively tell you if there is an area of difference between the two. Sounds like @Chuggy500 notcied a difference too.