WELL!!!What do you guys think of the Rev-xp challenge vs Artic Cat.Polaris and Yamaha

BuckSwashler said:
In ANY high performance vehicle it is always been about weight and horsepower, thats why 76, 77 SRX dominated sno pro and people started riding them on the trails, i test drove an NITRO RTX at Greenville show, it was like riding and angry walrus... Wouldn't you really rather ride a sled that weighed the same as an old exciter but had 15 inches of suspension travel? Most people want the lightest quickest sled possible because they are the most capable and the most fun...
Click to expand...


Angry Walrus??? My father-in-law used to ride one before his divorce but only after she took her tusks out. (safty was always an issue for him) :wink: :wink:

Me?? I will take the blue walrus over a yellow penguin any day. Penguins don't live very long and are constantly being eaten by sharks, besides they just look stupid. :yrules:

opsled
 

yammiman said:
I beg to differ - do your homework and you will find the XP is NOT as rider forward as the Rev - it is just like the Mach, which is just like the Apex - and leg room? - I sat on one of these at the Hastings snow show and my legs were above the hood by a good 1-1/2" - and I am under 6' (5'-11") - these things are built for little people IMO
Click to expand...

No leg room? They have more leg room than the REV chassis does. I am 6' 2" tall and I had plenty of leg room. If the XP was built for little people then the REV chassis was built for midgets.

REV XP vs. REV seating positions, REV XP in blue, REV in red, red outline shows REV chassis.

927-XP_seating.jpg


I will post more stuff later when I find it.

If I could find some studio pictures that were all the same size and taken at the same angle I could prove my point in 10 seconds.
 
Last edited:
shortstop20 said:
No leg room? They have more leg room than the REV chassis does. I am 6' 2" tall and I had plenty of leg room. If the XP was built for little people then the REV chassis was built for midgets.

REV XP vs. REV seating positions, REV XP in blue, REV in red, red outline shows REV chassis.

927-XP_seating.jpg


I will post more stuff later when I find it.

If I could find some studio pictures that were all the same size and taken at the same angle I could prove my point in 10 seconds.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned the Rev wasn't even built for midgets. I'm 5'6" at 175 lbs. and I hate the feel of revs. cramped and uncomfortable. Now for the XP, Im sure it's more comfortable, but only time will tel how it holds up. When reading these posts I'm reminded of the time a couple years ago. I was riding on top of a 5' bank, along a rode and boom! but kept rolling. At the next stop, a couple minutes later, I look to see what's up. Top, right radius rod was slightly bent. My wife said I lopped off the top of a 4"x4" post!!! Steering, control arm, spindle and handling was all NOT EFFECTED! I rode it that way for another 1000 miles and when I get around to it I replaced it for 30.00.

My buddy on his 06' GSX hit a 3" rotted stick in the ground, wasn't atteched to anything, broke the shock, bent the spring, and a-arm and had to limp home....200.00 in damage. You tell me??????
 
I see that it is less rider forward as you argued earlier but where is the additional leg room, down by the feet? - you can save your time with additional pictures, I've seen one, and sat on one in person - in all honesty they do not impress me!!
 
AllVipedUp,

I agree, the original REV chassis is cramped, I hated them being 6' 2". I have sat on the REV and XP several times back to back and the XP is a great improvement in the comfort department. You are right we will have to see how the chassis holds up. There is no doubt that the front end on the original REV was weak. I am by no means saying the REV or REV XP is the greatest thing ever made, far from that. I'm just stating my impressions.

yammiman,

I assume you mean more rider forward where you said less rider forward in your last post? The additional leg room is no myth, it's definitely there. There is alot more room down by your feet and for your knees as well. You don't have to bend your knees past 90 degrees like you did on a REV.

I'm not the kinda person that just looks at a sled and says "wow, that thing looks awesome." And I don't believe stuff just because the manufacturer says it. The XP will probably have some chassis problems its first year, maybe beyond that. I'm more concerned about the motor than the chassis. The 800R motor didn't exactly have a good reputation last year.
 
Last edited:
I bet it doesnt stay "super light" for the 2008 model year. I'm thinking they are going to have to do some reinforcing.
 
I heard the XP was engineered by the same guy that did the Bombardier Q400 landing gear. No?
 
Last edited:
.....I assume you mean more rider forward where you said less rider forward in your last post.....

The red rider (Rev) has his feet back under him which shifts his weight toward the front of the sled - that is the theory behind the "rider forward" approach - The blue rider (XP) has his feet more in front of him which shifts his weight backwards just like the old sleds, but not as much - the Apex is this way as is the 05-07 Mach's and the new XP's - all three are less rider forward than the Rev's - you can keep arguing it if you like, but the picture clearly shows what I am talking about!!
 
If your butt is sitting in the same spot, how is having your feet further back consider more rider forward? If I'm sitting on a chair and I put my legs out at a bend greater than 90 degrees(like the XP) and I then move my legs back to less than a 90 degree bend(like the REV), how does that make me more rider forward? The riders butt, chest, head position has not changed, all of that weight is in the same spot. All the rider has done is moved his legs further back and under him.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't understand how the original REV is more rider forward than the XP.

From what I understand the point of the original REV chassis was to move the rider more towards the center of the sled, in front of the rear mounts for the skid. All chassis previous to the REV had the rider sitting right above the rear mounts for the skid.
 
Last edited:
.......If I'm sitting on a chair and I put my legs out at a bend greater than 90 degrees(like the XP) and I then move my legs back to less than a 90 degree bend(like the REV), how does that make me more rider forward?...........

Did you actually try it? - the more you put your legs behind you, the more weight of your body goes forward - it is not just about moving the rider forward, but about tilting the rider forward like you are riding a crotch rocket motorcycle - the crotch rockets is what the Rev was actually based on - however, on a snowmobile, it is not compatable for all riders - that is why Yamaha came out with the Apex that was more of a compromise between the Rev and the old style sleds - and that is what the Mach and the new XP is like - it is a major point that most people are over looking and the point that I am trying to make - typical Ski Doo, make a change that is what someone else has already done, then try to claim it as their design with a whole lot of hype - I still maitain that Doo stole the whole Rev platform from Redline that never made it to the market place - alot of Doo's technology has either been bought or stolen from other manufactures - the only thing they are good at (IMO) is marketing - but that will only take them so far - which I think they are starting to feel it running out now - that is why they feel it so necessary to put out the type of advertising that they have in the last couple of years - if they don't jump into the 4 stroke market with something competitive in the next couple of years, they are going to fall by the wayside along with a couple of other manufacturers - my 2 cents!!! ;)!
 
yammiman said:
...... I still maitain that Doo stole the whole Rev platform from Redline that never made it to the market place ;)!
Click to expand...



And Redline got the idea from the Sno-scoot. Hence the "rider forward concept" is just another Yamaha invention.


opsled ;)! :yrules: ;)!
 
yammiman,

Yes, I have tried it, I know what you mean, your body tilts forward slightly. I have rode crotch rockets for a few years now. My main point is the rider's body is still not any further back than it was before on the REV. Yes, the weight is tilted back slightly but the rider is still in the same spot. You can sit in the same position on the XP that the original REV had. The Apex doesn't feel like it's as far forward as the REV XP to me though and the Apex does not give you as much of a choice in seating positions as the REV XP does. On the XP you can sit really far forward or sit back. I have no interest and don't care about the Mach Z. Ski-Doo did steal rider forward from Redline, but what about Yamaha, they didn't steal the design at all? Saying that Ski-Doo stole it and Yamaha didn't is pretty hypocritical. I understand that manufacturer's take designs from other manufacturer's all the time, it's part of the game, I'm not debating that. I will agree with you, it does seem like Ski-Doo has copied alot of stuff in years past. They copied Polaris's coupled suspension design and if I remember right they bought their electronic reverse technology from another company.

Just for the record, as I stated before, I am not trying to start an argument and I don't have anything against you. I'm just trying to understand your position on the subject compared to mine.
 
Last edited:
.....My main point is the rider's body is still not any further back than it was before on the REV......

It has nothing to do with the position of the body - it is the position of the legs and the resulting effect on the body - I don't how to explain it any more than that!! - the weight transfer of your body changes when your legs are in front of you opposed to when they are behind you - especially when you are put in motion - not brain surgery here, just simple physics!!

You lost me on the riding postitions - when I ride something, it is in one position - unless I'm in the bedroom!!! ;)!
 
Last edited:
LOL at your last comment. Yes, I understand what you're saying about the leg position. If that is indeed the main thing about rider forward, they should've come up with a different name for it IMO. i guess that's not the first thing that pops into my head when I think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top