if people hear claims of a primary clutch component affecting the back shift of their sled, i would question them. the primary has absolutely no effect on the back shift of your drive system..........not the way the drive system is designed to work. if a certain weight or spring in the primary gives you a better back shift it is only because the secondary has been change for it, otherwise you are only losing rpm out of your sleds peak horse power range. of course primary components can lose or gain rpm faster or slower due their individual weight, curve, and tension, but the secondary is the reason.

what i am saying is that if you have a clutch set up on your sled now, whether it is stock or aftermarket, if you only change a primary clutch component it will only affect the rpm of the motor. the goal is to have a back or up shift without affecting the optimum operating rpm of your sled.

the primary controls the engine rpm.
the secondary is the secret partner that manages how the rpm is actually used, to up and back shift without affecting rpm at all.

OK... I'm up for it. Are you? :p

I want you to go out and pu 1.5 gms extra on your pins. Heck only put .5 extra on it and click up 1. Roll it on up to 40MPH and let off on the throttle. Now take a gram out. That puts you only .5 from where you started and click down 2. Roll on up to 40 again and let off the throttle. No difference? A lot of difference with the same top RPM. The lighter the weight the sooner the primary can react when the RPM's drop. If you have more weight, it takes longer for the clutch to open.

Okay, the secondary is still the component controlling the backshift, or is it? It is, but it still reads in what the primary is sending for signal strength. The Primary quits trying to stuff the belt down into the secondary and the secondary can close sooner.

I know in theory the secondary only reads the torque it is seeing from the track, but in the real world... ;)

if your secondary was set up to react to you letting off the throttle, as it thinks you did when you are running wide open and hit a patch of powder, you won't lose one rpm. your secondary will backshift in it's cycle and when you grip again, you will never know the difference.

here is a test, pull your belt off, pin the throttle to 8000 rpm, and tap the brake (same affect as hitting a patch of soft snow), then get back on the gas, will the clutch close instantly, absolutely not!! now do the same test with the belt on and watch the secondary sheaves close with no affect to the primary. that's the bach shifting i am talking about. ;)

the secondary has got to back shift before it affects the primary. if it doesn't your clutch set up extremely in efficient.

i'm not argueing, i am disscussing this issue. that's what it is here for. alot of good things come out of this sort of thing.

You're not getting me to pull my belt off buddy!! :D It sounds like you are referring to downshift in one sentence and back shifting in the other.

It does kind of sound like we are just going to disagree until we can get together and try some stuff. But that's how things get made better all the time. New ideas.

Okay someone else jump in here and straighten us out. :p :0:

:withstupid: :D

In my mind the primary can effect backshift, control it? no, effect it yes.

Say I'm the primary and you're the secondary and we're playing a game of tug -o-war with the rope/ belt. If I'm winning we're upshifting, if your winning were backshifting. In order for either one of us to to gain an advantage the other one has to be letting go of the rope. If I'm letting go easily you backshift faster, if i'm putting up a good fight you backshift slower. Say I'm setup with a heavy flyweight spring combo and am tugging 2000 lbs @ 8000rpms, 1800lbs @ 7000rpms, Im not giving up much rope when i lose 1000rpms. Now say I'm a light flyweight, lighter spring primary setup pulling same 2000lbs@8000 , 1500lbs@7000, now when we lose the 1000rpms you get more rope faster, or backshift. Same could be said with a primary that uses the same flyweight only a heavier spring, when the rpms fall off it will give belt up to the secondary easier.

Kind of oversimplified but hopefully it makes some sense.

OK, I am agreeing to disagree. The primary will have an effect on backshift. The more weight you put in the primary, the more centrifugal force you have spinning at 8000rpm. It takes more signal from the secondary to force the sheaves back open in a backshift situation. Not saying this is right, because in a perfect world, if both are working at there optimum, it would backshift instantainously when releasing the throttle or being put under load. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. Snow pack changes from day to day along with temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. You engine produces different levels of horsepower from morning to night and the cvt drive system will not compensate for the changes. If it did, everything would have a CVT type drive system.


Brian


BTW...I love this spell check..LOL :)

hold it....hold it....

I have read an article before in snotech and some guy talked about "downshift"
I put the zine down & proceded to bang my head on the table for about two minutes. I re-read the article and started to crack my head on the table again until my good buddy Rocketman stopped me. I then proceded to eat the zine, Rocketman while laughing handed me some ketchup.


Please someone explain to me the definition of: downshift

clutchman
...if a certain weight or spring in the primary gives you a better back shift it is only because the secondary has been change for it,


I concur. I do not understand what you say "has been change for it". If you mean "compensate", then I concur.

Primary signals upshift
Secondary signals backshift.


mxzwfo
...because in a perfect world, if both are working at there optimum, it would backshift instantainously when releasing the throttle or being put under load.
The secondary does backshift instantly. As soon as the signal is lost from the primary and torque is not transmitted thru the belt, the secondary reacts instantly. The sheaves have compression force, tension and rotation all being put on the belt. Regardless of how much backshift is measured, the secondary reaction is instant to compensate for torque lost.

OOOOOOkaaaaay now. My head is hurting from banging it against the wall. Thought I would try it.

I just have a question.

Why is it that when you are running a heavier weight/spring set-up in the primary, you coast so much farther when you let off the gas than when you are running a lighter pin weight/spring set-up while using the same secondary set-up?

In this case what is causing the backshift to diminish with the first set-up? Only one thing has been changed.

The centrifugal force increases or decreases at the SQUARE of the speed (rpm). So with the heavier weights the centrifical force does not fall off as fast as the rpms decrease, or doesn't give up as much belt to the secondary for the back shift, downshift, whatever you want to call it. This would expain why it feels like it's "coasting" more as its staying in higher gear longer. Even if you use a heavy primary spring, remember the spring rate stays the same regardless regardless of rpm, the flyweights get heavier rpm squared. Joe, agreed those articles pure baffle em with bullsht product endorsement, even with ketchup, LOL.

I think the way hillpounder explained it is nice,I agree 100%.I must say this technical forum has been great. :thumbsup:

I agree 100% with what hillpounder just said. That is the point that I have been trying to make.

With that said, do you guys think that the primary effects backshift or do you think that it will backshift the same whether you have heavy weights or light weight in the primary?

Or are we just talking about two completely different subjects?

Clarify for me, guys. When you let off the gas into a corner is the machine backshifting or do you refer to what is happening as engine breaking?

I believe the severity of the backshift is what would determine engine braking (it would be an individual's judgement call)....drive a two stroke road bike and then drive a four stroke road bike (especially one with a light flywheel like the old FJ's) and then it would be clear, you would definitely say the four stroke would have engine braking when compared to a two stroke....

This stuff is great. Learningsomething new each time I logon.

Thanks for all the info guys/girls

The secondary still, even if you read the previous post`s is controlling the backshift, even if its controlling it at a different rate due to x spring in the primary or a combination of spring, weight, profile, etc, the secondary initiates the downshift and though it might be different with different primary combo`s it is what it is....Dynamo, your insight has been cool. I normally jump all over clutching topics like you`ve been posting on to add some constructive input, however you clearly have a sound understanding of the interactions of the tra components, and reading has been interesting. This is the tech forum, and I noticed that in some previous post that it seemed liked you developed alot around whatever ramp you started with, or possibly it was for the specific machine you were reffering too, but whatever...what are your thoughts on picking a ramp?, I`m thinking more drag race orienated however I`m sure the same thought process, though more involved would relate too a hot trail, or sno x set up. You explained your thought process very accuratly, and I cant flaw it on far as primary weight, spring, secondary spring, preload, and multiple cam angles, however its seemed to me the total clutch always evolves, and though the primary technically should be defined first, where does a dynamo joe go about picking a optimun ramp early in the process?

this is the reason i started this topic, for controversy, and more importantly, opinions!!!! if you could go straight across a lake or field with two camera's under the hood, at each clutch, like nascar "tire cam", you would be amazed at how much the secondary opens and closes as you ride, i've done it, compared to the primary. this is the back shifting i am talking about. when the track gets a pull or drag on it for what ever reason, powder spot in trail , slush, open water, the secondary is opening and closing like a freak as you go through that area so it won't affect speed or rpm, that is the secondary's job. when the pull becomes too much for the secondary set up in your sled to handle of course it will affect the primary clutch, it is the next thing in line in the drive system to make the sled slow, or pull on the motor. :D


the bold's are the important parts, think about it for a sec, without useing the wall!!!!

ballsout i was typeing my last responce when you posted yours. a drag race and sno cross type rideing are going to require completely different ramps. on the gas hard, and on the brake hard, and back again is way way way different than full throttle until the line comes.

@ballsout; ...clearly have a sound understanding of the interactions of the tra components, and...
...it seemed liked you developed alot around whatever ramp you started with, or possibly it was for the specific machine you were reffering too, but whatever...

If you read what I type whether it be now or in the past, you'll find that I try to define details by weeding out information that people don't need to know to solve a problem. You'll find that I always try to deal with the problem which is what a person "does not like" of their system and search for the "Root Cause" of the problem.
I don't like to change parts, but rather adjust the parts that are there to make the system run different than before, regardless if it was to the good or not. When you do this and see a change with enough magnitude that you can measure, you have the theory in your head of how the system supposedly works, so the next "Adjustment" that you make, you should be able to predict the outcome of that adjustment. This is the way to learn "root cause" analysis.
So like anyone else can think.."What is wrong with this stock setup? What can we measure here that is a problem?"
One of the first things is temperature... I've mentioned b4 that temperature alone tells great stories.

Make an adjustment, write it down, think about it, talk about it, chew over the theory and try to predict the outcome of another adjustment.
So now you are not looking for an answer, you are looking for a result to raise more questions for yourself. I find when people find an answer they are not interested in pursuing details any further. I find they are the ones who more than not say..."you cant do that" or "that wont work".
I'm totally guilty of this myself and I've been humbled a few times of what I thought will not work...does work.
I have a few good stories of being forced to learn of what is required in certain conditions.

I think what mxzwfo says about agreeing to dis-agree is about right.except I think we are all on the same page,we just don't realize it.yes the primary(by adding weight) will affect the backshift of a given secondary set up,because the secondary was not set-up to backshift that primary set-up.the added weight to the primary is working the secondary to hard and it will not shift back as easily which in turn allows it to cost a lil'. :nervous: does that sound better

Clutchman, I meant the same reasoning to deal with whatever your trying too accomplish, in this case picking the ramp profile. I did not mean to infer that I beleived the actual ramp would be the same, just the thought process in deciding what you needed in the ramp for whatever the hll your gonna doo. Dynamo, you seem to be able to tune around whatever stock ramp, to cure the defeciantcies in the system by using spring rates , weight, helix, etc, I guess you cant ask for much more than that and I supposed you answered my question.... your answer that was infered was that , dont mess with the ramp until you cant solve your problem using the helix, primary and secondary spring, wieght etc., and that in itself is somewhat unique as alot of "clutchers" somehow arrive at a ramp they want to use early in the developement process, which spawned my original question of how the hel doo you doo that early and accurately early. Really it doesent matter, at the end of the day et`s are compared, and god knows with the tra there are some many adjustments... so many ways to skin the ....

dooman pretty much dialed it for me. perhaps i overstepped my boundries and should have explained myself better. we are on the same page, some are just reading deeper into the words, i.e. me. i take clutching very seriously!! when i hear down or back shift, instantly i think secondary clutch, that's where the down or back shift starts. both clutches work together and both dramaticly affect each other, but, there is an order in which they affect each other.


my very first post, the topic, i looked too deep for some people's expierience. i worded that a bit wrong, now that i look back at it. when changeing something in the clutches, there will be a difference in how they work. but, all things being equal, if you just change a ramp, it is the wrong way to achieve a efficient back or down shift, ultimately you will have a negative reaction in the secondary because of doing that one thing. then you need to change the secondary set up for that.

there is no "magic" springs, helix, weights, ramps, whatever. they all provide a very unique task and have to work together properly to achieve top results and efficiency. geez, look at what something as simple as belt deflection, or un-aligned clutches will do.

as far as what to pick first, it is just expierience, and tons of mistakes. after a while you just know what change will achieve the desire you have in your set up.
regardless of brand, some designs are better, and some are easier, but clutch tuneing principles are the same.

This topic is moving along rather quickly and I havent had much time to keep up. I would like to elaborate on my thoughts of Backshift but I feel I have to include much more. Sorry I have not read mahy of the replies, i just have been picking out key sentences that pop out of the page...

I find that the reason for many arguements and misunderstandings is because people have a hard time to explain what kinds of issues they're dealing with. Different people have different definitions involved in specific details. I find that clutching in general has a lack of standards. A lack of definition. A lack of language that we can all communicate with.
We need standards to speak in "Clutching Language" because some disputes go on and on because of the way information is conveyed.
Having Standards as tools, now everyone who wants to learn and discuss clutching becomes dependant on this, a "Pre Programmed" format to help the answers be experienced driven. Experienced tuners drive the standard letting it be easy for the novice to construct a great conversation. It's the knowledge about the knowledge that counts for people to talk to each other. You know definitions, you know the results from your adjustments because you performed an exercise.
This will put quickly put the novice tuner into the same league as an experienced tuner because they understand the data they recorded in their notes.
This is why I make a manual that goes with a kit. Previously it was just having the "this guy's kit" or "that guy's kit" that mattered. As you read a manual it eventually becomes clear that a format of information to troubleshoot the system becomes the important element on ANY clutch system. Being able to think using standards and definitions then the tuner will be able to decide what will work and what won't. So the key to the best clutch kit or really your best clutching is the best features; To me, that's information.

These are some of my favorite words when it comes to this "backshift" subject.
Dynamic[s]:
A branch of mechanics that deals with forces and their relation primarily to the motion. "Accelerating" "Decelerating"
Equilibrium:
a state of balance between opposing forces or actions that is either static (as in a body acted on by forces whose resultant is zero)..."coasting"
...or Dynamic (as in a reversible reaction when the rates of reaction in both directions are equal) "Letting off the fuel while the sled enters a load like deep snow or going up a hill"

There is the engine load, the torque applied to move the sled.
There is the ground load, the torque required to overcome this load.
The helix connects the two loads!

The spline/keyway on the helix is the connected to the ground.
The roller/button path is the connetion to the engine.

Secondary initiates and signals the backshift absolutely immediately:
*when the torque diminishes from the engine.
*when the load from the ground overcomes the torque applied from the engine.

Secondary is connected to the ground and feels how much load is on the drive shaft between the ground and engine.
If you keep the input to the secondary from the engine, the secondary opens from the upshift signal.
The secondary measures the torque required to accelerate the sled.
when the load of the sled is greater than the engine, like deeper snow, bumps, hills, the backshift is signaled.

Im just telling you stuff you already know...

Lets look at 45 degrees for an angle as a reference to start from.
*40 deg is shallower than 45, the slower the secondary will upshift than the 45, the engine load is less to the ground and backshift is quicker than 45.
*50 deg is steeper than 45, the faster the secondary will upshift than the 45, the engine load is more to the ground, backshift is slower than 45.

High speeds...It takes a lot of HP to move a sled say 100 mph. How much more HP does it take to go 105mph. You are better off to think of it this way...How much more load from the ground/wind etc is working "Against" the HP of the engine at 105 than 100. Which helix angle would fair better to maintain 105 mph?...50?...45?...40?

Speed/lake/x-country/trail High loads which have bumps, vibrations, snow, wind, like small angles for top end.
Drags where there is not much resistance on bare ice like steeper angle helix to get you out of the hole and accelerate.

You can see why I like to blend the angles and have had continual success in achieving both worlds with one helix. Only need but a little different angle here or there to extract all the torque from that particular engine's fitness.

Fast upshift with a larger helix angle for a certain part of the range, slow the upshift progressively to a smaller angle;
Because as speed increases the load against the sled becomes greater and you compensate keeping the engine on power by this progression.

...And like I say, Im not telling anyone here anything you didnt already know. Im just re-hashing it over and over in a few well uhh, "twisted" ways. HAHAHAHAHA

Damn but I have a big mouth. :doh:

Good discussion guys, lots of stuff to think about. How many of you think skidoo has a clutch calibration team, or at least tests some different combinations? The fact that we've seem to be getting new ramp profiles every recent year make me think they do (test). How good a job do you think they do? It's my opinion that they shoot for a good overall setup for a variety of riders and rider conditions with the sled model taken into consideration? At least thats what would seem logical for an oem to do? yes? no?

So lets just postulate that makes the stock clutching a "neutral" setup. And that most clutch tuning is either to acheive an bias toward "upshift" or "downshift" , without making too much compromise on the side your moving away from. Wouldn't it make sense that only a few small changes could acheive this, not a change-every-part-in-the-system kit? I think so.

Some thoughts on ramps. Since the advent of the big twins (big torque@low rpms) the ramps seem to have gotten longer and flatter, why do you think this is?
Why not just a short steep ramp that opens the sheave with very little travel of the arm/roller?

Tuning the existing ramps, or tuning around them? If you were to trace out the natural arc that the arm roller path makes and compare that to the curvature of a ramp, the ramp that more closely matches it would be the "easiest" to tune with just weight and spring. As you start to deviate from this profile to acheive a desired result (for example deep falling belly to "load hard" in the middle) the compromises start (the roller now has to climb out of the belly) it will now take more effort to tune the whole shift range and the clutching will become more "use" specific".

Excellent explanation Joe. :thumbsup: Thank you.
I think we needed that.

I like your ideas on the ramps too hillpounder. Maybe you would like to start a separate thread on ramps. There are a lot of people that would like a better understanding of how they affect our clutching, including me.

@clutchman: ballsout i was typing my last responce when you posted yours. a drag race and sno cross type rideing are going to require completely different ramps. on the gas hard, and on the brake hard, and back again is way way way different than full throttle until the line comes.

I disagree. As an example, in the 440mxzx/rev I use the same ramp with sno-x, drag race, hill climb, x-country, watercross. The helix is what changes for me. For what I use, I can say that sno-x and drag helix are nearly the same. The hillclimb, x-country, speed run, trail ride the helix's are nearly the same.
The largest influence for tuning the start angle on the helix is the fitness of the engine. Engines with higher compression can utilize a larger start angle, the lesser compression must use less start angle.
Chassis that have tighter reacting suspensions where traction is impressive can use lower angle start helix to load the engine.
Where traction is bad you can use a larger start angle to load the engine.
For this 440 engine from 99-03 the peak torque is at 8200 and peak HP is at 8400 [99's @ 8500]
I know that you can drag at set rpms of either 8200 rpm and at 8400 rpm. These will take two totally different helix angle compounds. The 8200 may take a small angle spread of say 10 degrees, where as the 8400 rpm will take a larger angle spread of more than 10.

I now use helix's which finish with the same angle for this sled that does pretty damn good in all of the disciplines, BUT I compenstate for the engine fitness and discipline with the "required" start angle.

Leaving the ramp alone I like to use a helix that provides an angle that the sled "Needs" at the speed it is going and add the weight accordingly to maintain peak rpm in a desired shift.
You punch the fuel, it accelerates hard...let off the fuel the clutches backshift quickly, you punch the fuel again, you accelerate hard.
The clutches have a fantastic ability to grip the belt all the way to and past 1:1 ratio.
The low temperature is the clutches telling the tuner that the system is very efficient.
I've enjoyed exploring this avenue greatly with different cc engines.
What has really been fun is making this work on Polaris sleds using progressive angles that have 20 or (+/-) degrees range.
I do not change the style of flyweight on the Polaris. I change the center of gravity on them, but the profile is still the same. This is why I like to leave the ramp alone until all troubleshooting possibilities are exhausted.

I will change to a different ramp if needed when we cannot get a desired rpm with adjusting the flyweights.
Example to get a higher engagement when I use a 228, I will go to a 145 ramp. Same ramp, but the 145 has a little hump that will raise engagement.
Example using a CF1. Need a larger engine to pull harder on the bottom 1/3rd of the midrange when you don't want to change the flyweight, you would go from a CF1 to a PX.
The CF1 & PX are identical in upper 2/3rds of ramp profile but the PX has a lower ramp at the start to make the flyweight push harder. The rpms will be lower and/or the push will be harder in the bottom of the midrange from the previous CF1 exersize.

I like to troubleshoot the original ramp and extract all you can from it. Then if desired results are not found, find a ramp that has the right shift curve in the required area you need.

wow, unbelievable!!

Sorry, I did not mean to come across as a knowitall dickh3ad. :nervous:

You didn't. We value your input!!!

dynamo^joe, no, no that wasn't what i meant at all!!!!! keep the input coming.

Thanks for the kind words. Over a long period of time, I have constant feedback from a lot of people who carry knowledge "like you guys" but mail me instead of posting and/or just like to call.
So you should rather see my comments as a concentration of info mostly from a bunch of interested tuners and customers where from my own experiences I merely act as an "Amateur editor".
I hope people understand that the information I spew, represents a great number of individuals.
The information has a heavier weight than just me, which is then just good.
:D
Thanks
Joey

Joe, Without guys like you, this sport would not be where it is today. You and everybody else that contributes to this site and the sport, are the driving force for all of us .
I personally want to say thanks, and keep up the good work!


Brian



SWRules

HERE HERE!!!!

Good topic. I have an issue with backshifting myself. I have an f7. The weights are Cutler AG 63gms, Org/ wht primary spring, Red/ wht secondary, 60/53 helix. this set up pulls hard from start to top end, but say at a pull up to 70mph on hard pack, let off, get back into it, there is a hesitation of a sec or two. What I think is happening is the agressive profile of this weight is holding the primary in a high ratio. This only happens on hard pack. In powder the back shift is right there. Its like there is a free wheel effect on hard pack.

Ok, now the sled will shift at 7500-7600 and get up a steady 7600 at full shift. This is a little low. Should shift at 7700-7800 and climb to 7900.

I now have a pipe. I need to get the sled to shift at 7900-8000 and climb to 8100. What I'm thinking of doing is taking some weight off the tip of the weights to get the rpm I'm looking for and I think it will help the back shift. I have thought about trying a different secondary spring but I think I should get the rpm sorted out first.

What I would like to know is should I take the weight off the tip or take it off evenly across the bottom? What do you guys think?

Thanks

Matt Gilbert

f7
7900
Cutler AG 63gms
Pri - Org/wht
Sec - Red/wht
60/53 helix

Comments:
Pulls hard from start to top end.
Pull up to 70mph on hard pack, let off, get back into it, *hesitation*

of a sec or two. What I think is happening is the agressive profile of this weight is holding the primary in a high ratio.
I think the amount of weight is the culprit and not the profile. The profile is so nearly the same as a Polaris "M" flyweight, its almost not even worth the effort for me to mention.

This only happens on hard pack. In powder the back shift is right there.
Im going to guess that because you say the backshift is right there, is because your sled speed is not that high or as high compared to when you mention the run with "Hesitation"

Ok, now the sled will shift at 7500-7600 and get up a steady 7600 at full shift. This is a little low. Should shift at 7700-7800 and climb to 7900.
Same thing I do believe. Flyweight mass is the culprit. The primary has a lot of push and the helix cannot compensate to resist the push. You can look at the speed you are going where this happens and where does this happen on the helix?...What is the shift point on the helix. Sounds like there is less angle needed in the helix for the speed and loads you are running at that point.

I now have a pipe. I need to get the sled to shift at 7900-8000 and climb to 8100. What I'm thinking of doing is taking some weight off the tip of the weights to get the rpm I'm looking for and I think it will help the back shift.
Yes this will work, but I would make the modification longer than just taking the tip off if you were going to go this route.

Look at it this way...
You said that it pulls right to top end in a straight shot.
Let off somewhere in upper midrange in encountered loads and the engine takes long to come back.
As I said...The primary has a lot of push and the helix cannot compensate to resist the push...
Ok so how about keeping this "push" I mention with the flyweight and try to "Capture" this force.
How?...Need to compensate with helix angle to resist the push to keep engine on peak.

I have already messed with your setup a few years ago. I used to tune a few mod 700's for a Factory Cat guy.
If the red/wht spring you mention is a Cutler Rd/Wt then that spring is the same as a ACAT - Green spring that is normally stock in the sno-pro sleds, and its a fine spring.

All I have to say is 60/40 and change nothing else.

Thanks for the info Joe. The Rd/Wht is the cat spring.

I'll try the cat green w/a 60-40 and no grinding. Correct?

I've always tried to stay away from that much change in the helix. I've been more of a weight grinder. Move the mass around to stay in the powerband while keeping the angle change to a min.

Matt Gilbert

Matt...this red/wht IS a cat spring?.....
like made by cat?

Damn but I seem to remember that spring somewhat. I know I have one but I cannot find it. If you stand that spring up on its tang, its kinda short eh, mebbe about 4" tall, really dull red color with a white stripe?...small wire dia of .190" ?

I was hoping it was the CPC-Rd/Wht. This is such a heavy spring its almost ludicrous.

I've been more of a weight grinder. Move the mass around to stay in the powerband while keeping the angle change to a min.

Yeh heh, but this helix choice is much more economical option and will make a substantial difference to measure. I will be waiting to hear results if you choose this avenue.

L8R
J'

Joe, that red/wht spring comes in the 7,8,9& I think the 6 also. Its between the yellow/wht and the green. Cat shows the rates at 1 7/16"

Yellow-92 lbs
Red/wht-113 lbs
Green-157 lbs

Thanks

Matt Gilbert