Went to a show this pst weekend and viewed the RX-1 for the first time. Nice looking, but heavy up front!! Thought I was gonna bust a gut picking it up. I would hate to get it off the trail, would need a groomer to pull it out! Very impressive technology, will see how they progress until I take the plunge.

:withstupid: I was at Onsted this weekend and "Tried" to pick the animal up. Sweet looking sled, love the sound, but man was it heavy in the front! The Rear end compared to any other sled in weight. Hopefully I get to ride one this winter to see how it really does!!

Hey catman. You have to come up here for the Capac drags Nov 10 I believe is the date. It'll only be about an extra hour to hourand a half drive. So how far from toledo are you? I'm 1 hour.
Caleb

I am down between Dayton and Lima just off of I 75. It is about an hour and 15 minutes for me to get to Toledo. Is that race a run what you brung type? If so, I might have to make a trip up. Hopefully we have the "440" ready for season by then and I can bring it up. Let me know for sure when the races are, thanks
Ryan

It is Nov 10. Send me your PH# in a pm or email me. There will be a few of us from around me so we may be able to meet up and put all the sleds on one trailer or something.
caleb

i was wondering does yamaha give the owner of a rx 1 free chiropractic visits :0:

Hey guys, chill out with the RX-1 insults, or the few of us might have to start some trouble with you guys.

I found it unbelivably heavy up front. This really isnt an issue but if I was buying one I would definitly get reverse. Reverse should come standard.

come on what insults? someone has a negative opinion that's all...

i think the RX-1 will prove them wrong and without all the negatives first, it won't be as much fun.

lighten up -- all you did was buy one you didn't build it... :D

oh man, its gonna b a great winter!

:withstupid: Really, I did not say anything bad about the sled, just that I thought being 6'1 225#'s I would be able to pick the front of the sled up, and I couldn't. I have nothing against the Heavier sleds, I still love to ride them on the trails, just stating what happened! Chill out, I hope it is an awesome sled!

Exactlly. Being 6,6 and pretty strong I couldnt belive how much trouble the RX-1 was to lift. Yes i could lift it but I wouldnt want to. I seriously would recommend reverse for someone thats not a body builder.

THats the Honest truth.

No matter what happens people are going to continue to bash the RX-1. I ride an SRX and I get bashed constantly. Last season I met up with a guy who did nothing but tell me how much of a piece of crap my sled was, how slow it was etc. He was a nice guy but he was honest about his opinions. We raced...I beat him really bad...and he still wouldn't let up. Some people are just that way, no matter what they refuse to believe anything other than what they want to believe.

really 99 after you won he still ran his mouth?? with the group of guys i ride with the one who wins can run there mouth! should have knocked him out!

99SRX700 - I dont see or read anything in the above forum that justifies bashing of the RX-1. You and a few others seem to be using this word a little bit to loosly and it does harm the quality of conversation on this site because bashing is a very serious offence on this site.

It seems that nothing negitive can be said about the RX-1 with out having a few of you jump all over it calling it bashing and so on.

You will never get everyone to agree with you on your opinion of a sled and you and the rest of us know that. So if someone doest like somthing, or comments on somthing and god forbid he adds a little joke, dont take it personal and cry about it. I think we can all say that we all seem to know each other a little and no one on here would want to personnally insault anyone. Somepeople just write things wrong and sometimes have bad moods. Just keep that in mind.

Peace..

What is the weight of the RX-1?

newf

640 pounds according to another poster. Look within this forum for the picture of the scale reading. I don't remember which thread.

k folks this is off of another forum, it only didn't gain weight it also lost 10 hp from last winter, this is a legit number as it was dynoed by dynotech industries.

136.6 hp and 69 ft/lbs of torque @ 10,400 rpm measured directly off the engine crank. There will be some inherent loss through the gear reduction. Peak torque was 76.1 ft/lbs @ 7600 rpm. Realize the gear reduction is a torque multiplier so drive clutch torque will be 1.2 x crankshaft torque. :cussing:

Here you go again with the numbers, this is about weight, not HP.

Machzzz I understand your point but at the same time all everyone does is call this machine hype and talk about its weight. I think the reason for this is because its weight is its most negative feature and thats what everyone seems to focus on. To me that is bashing. The only positive posts I have seen have been in response to negative ones. I am not taking anything personally I am just trying to add a little balance. I know its heavy I picked one up myself but its not as heavy as everyone says it is.

F7-----> 140hp and 435lbs 2 STROKE POWER!!

by the sounds the sled is poorly balanced. but i always say wait till the rubber hits the snow.

ummm...to the 6. ft. guys who can't lift the RX1..ummmm......you might want to try a weight lifting program.....I lifted it on the Showroom floor of our local dealer....and it was not as bad as you guys say it is....

Try lifting the ### end of a Nordic!


p.s Deadlifts and squats will help get those muscles into shape:)))

SRX2002. I can lift and unstuck my MachZ by my self. I got no problem with lifting things. I can lift the RX-1 but my point is that not many people can lift my MachZ. It normally takes two guys to get it in the truck and when its stuck it needs a fleet of people. Now I pitty the guy who is of avrage build trying to get there Rx-1 unstuck since it is more in the front end then the Mach. Yes the Mach and RX-1 are closely weighed, but the Rx-1 is all right over the front well the Mach seems to be more ballanced out making it easier to lift.

Hey machzzzz1 get your head out of your a** look at the sled. the motor is further back in the sled than it is in your mach! Havent you got anything better to do than come to the yamaha forum & talk about your great knowledge of ski doo.hahahahaha :hallo9:

allmost forgot, this is the weight of mine with all fluids in & 6 gal. fuel in the tank.

Machzzz for once I completely agree with you. Thats pretty much my point, the sled is heavy but not far in weight from the Mach Z. Some people are talking like it weighs so much more. I have never heard anyone complain about the wieght of the Mach Z like they do about the RX-1. As far as balance goes the one I lifted was the same way but so was my SRX when I first bought it. A few adjustments (crank up the center shock a little and let out the limiter strap) made the front and rear feel like the same weight.

MXZ900 Please dont flatter yourself with you picture of a digital readout.

Like I said before i dont care what they weight. BUT HEY LOOK AT WHAT THIS TOPIC IS CALLED. And did I start it, NOOOOOO.

Now the Mach engine is farther forward and so are the pipes. But its probably a lighter motor so it doesnt matter.

I dont care where the engine is located or how heavy the engine is. All I know is that when i went to lift it, it felt really really heavy and my Mach doesnt feel that way to me.

Then when my neighbour took delivery of his he couldnt get it off the trailer. He needed to pull it back as far as possible and then drive the truck away.

And for all the Yamaha guys that are wondering why weight is the most talked about subject for this sled. Well what else can you talk about. No One here drove it yet. No One here knows for sure how it will preform, and you cant tell anything about anything till we get some snow.

But I honestly think that people that got this sled without reverse are going to be a little sorry that they didnt when they got to turn it around.

THats all, No bashing..

Just to get the record straight, the MachZ weighs 10 to 15 pounds more. As far as balnce goes, a racer posted some time ago that when they weighed their RX-1 there was a difference of 14 pounds from weight on the ski's to the weight on the track. I challenge anybody to find a better balanced sled.

I went to the yammi dealer last week-end just to see if all this talk about weight is true.

1rst i asked the sale's guy the weight and his answer was, ehhhh i dont no, yamaha told me it was 5% mor than the srx.

2nd i tried to lift it from the front and yes it is verry heavy, but then again so are 98% of all sleds over 600cc ! But i am not a big guy and i barely got the skis to lift the ground. the fact that i kept thinking the bumper would fall off did not help :D

3rd i thought the limited edition was pretty nice looking ! love the carbon fiber plastic covers the addes !

4th When he started her up i was pretty amazed at the sound ! pretty impressive for a 4 stroke.

all i can say is i have to try one this winter !

MightyRX-1, Im sorry but there is much more then a 14 pound diffrence between the skis and tracks. Thats pure BS and most people that had a chance to lift one including you know it. The rear of the sled is as light as any sled to lift but the front is like a tank. How this is ballanced I dont know. Maybe with a rider on the sled 14 pounds front and back is belivable but without a rider please.

I have been watching for your comments on the track HP machzzzz1 and haven't seen one. How do you explain 11 HP more than your machZ?

if it does make more hp at the track then a machz wich i realy dont think so. but if so it just showz u how unreliable track dynos are cause i think we can all agree that there is a reason it was put in the 700 class and was not competetive. like come on guys. it makes more power at the track then the big boyz but cant compete with the machz`s little brother the mach 1.. the rx1 is a real nice sled and i am even concidering looking at them for next year if all goes well. the fuel ecocomy would be wild.... but to say it will spank the fastest production sled is hmmm :hallo3: :hallo2: :D ps; i see someone will be signing there pink slips over to a machz owner.......lol

Can I interject?

Looks like that rx1 makes peak hp (136.6) near redline (10,400 rpm; I can't imagine the engine spinning too much faster than that), cranking 69 ft-lb torque. Assuming the mach makes the same torque (being a 2stroke it probably actually makes more) near it's redline (let's use a value of 9000 rpm) this works out to 118 hp. Because that superbike engine spins so fast, you get a high hp number. But who cares about hp? It's just a ratio. Torque is what turns wheels to move you forward. Further, anyway, if that mach is only 11 hp less than the rx1 (125 hp), at our same assumed 9000 rpm, it must be putting out 72.9 ft-lb torque. Peak torque of the rx1 was only 76.1 at 7600 rpm. I wonder how much torque the mach has at around 6800-7000 rpm. 82-85 ft-lb would be my guess.

p.s. I'm not biased. I only believe in math and physics.

Back to the topic of the original post, weight, I just picked up the front end of the RX-1 for the first time. I am 6'2 and weigh about 195-200, average build and strength. Now that that's out of the way, The RX-1 felt no heavier in the front to me than my SRX and was in fact a little easier to lift because the bumper is higher off the ground. Right next to the RX-1 was a Viper. I lifted the viper and thought that felt no lighter. My thoughts on this are: The Viper bumper was lower to the ground than the RX-1 bumper, which for me, doesn't make it any easier. Second, the RX-1 motor is much further back from the bumper, tilts to the rear and doens't have an exhaust pipe out front. However, I did notice that the oil sump did feel heavier and cause the machine to tilt that way, more so than a silencer does.

By the way, the bumper was as solid as the bumper on the Viper. No creaks, groans (except mine) or cracking when I lifted or jerked it around. IMHO, I don't think one will need to be any more careful and mindful of weight with this machine than with any 3X3 on the market.

One of the most reasonable posts on the RX-1 I have read yet Renegade :)

I am 6'5" 258LBS

I just had to lift the RX-1 when I saw it 3 weeks ago

Too me it felt not much heavier then my STX 583

For guys that are over 6 feet tall and you can't pick the RX-1 up WTF???

Remember the pipes on the RX-1 exit the back unlike your MachZ were all its pipes weight is in the front

Wimps :p

wimps :D LMFAO

Performancex your numbers are way off. In order to find peak torque you would have to calculate at the RPM in which peak torque occurs (which is not 9 grand) also you would have to take into consideration that the clutch is spinning at significantly lower RPMs due to the gear between the crank and the PTO which would greatly effect torque. In this case I believe the difference in RPM between the two shafts is around 2500. So you would have to take the RPM at which peak torque occurs, subtract 2500 from that and then use that as your RPM number and do the formula. You would also have to find out where peak torque occurs and what horsepower the engine is producing at that RPM.

Thanks Mighty, just want to be clear I was not trying to be "reasonable" just objective.

LMAO at mxz900 :withstupid:

what? :hallo1:

Sorry mxz900 it was freezerburnt who first said 'wimps' to anyone
who can't lift the front of there sled ;)

Originally posted by 99SRX700@Oct 21 2002, 10:29 AM
Performancex your numbers are way off. In order to find peak torque you would have to calculate at the RPM in which peak torque occurs (which is not 9 grand) also you would have to take into consideration that the clutch is spinning at significantly lower RPMs due to the gear between the crank and the PTO which would greatly effect torque. In this case I believe the difference in RPM between the two shafts is around 2500. So you would have to take the RPM at which peak torque occurs, subtract 2500 from that and then use that as your RPM number and do the formula. You would also have to find out where peak torque occurs and what horsepower the engine is producing at that RPM.
Sorry, I forgot to mention those are numbers off the crank that I got from another post.
But still, it seems you didn't read my statement close enough, or else I didn't explain it well.

Performance, your right I read your post wrong, at the bottom it said that peak torque on the RX-1 was at 7600 which I have heard from other sources as well. If you do the math at this RPM then it comes out to 112 ft/lbs of torque at the primary clutch which is what matters because that is where the power matters. Thats why Yamaha is using the gear reduction. I am assuming the gear reduction puts the clutches at 8500 when the motor is at peak horsepower since anymore RPM and the clutch effiency drops big time. I used 2500 as the difference in engine RPM to Clutch speed although it is a little more. That puts the primary at 5100 RPM and this is what you will have to use as your RPM in the formula. I am also not sure if I used the right horsepower numbers. I think it is supposedly 109 horses at 7600 RPM. If these are right then 112 ft/lbs is about the peak torque (at the clutch). I believe thats more than any machine in production right now...although I may be mistaken.

Sorry guys I know this post was about weight but I found this interesting.

Performance I screwed up again...the difference between clutch and engine RPM is 1900. I thought the engine was building power at a higher RPM. This makes everything I just posted wrong. OOPS :( It still gives some pretty decent numbers but not what I thought.

I met a dealer at a New Hamshire Expo who claims his guys weighed one wet, no fuel.

Tipped the scales at 605 lbs.

Seems like the reason the weight isn't specified in any factory literature.

You don't toss that around easily.

The latest Snowtech claims 604lbs "wet" no gas.

According to yamaha's web site specs say 558lbs dry weight for the RX-1.
Skidoo was happy to give the 454lbs for the Rev but did not give the weigth for the mach-z[COLOR=blue] :blahblah:

Maybe next year they could throw a Hyabusa motor on that chassis to offset the weight. Then slap on one of the turbo kits... :devil:

558 Mach Z, and still the one to beat. Come to Minnesota and get spanked by an old 97 Mach Z at 574 lbs. stock. :thumbsup:

Come to Michigan and we will see if I can hang with you with and old 1993 Vmax 750 stock 582lbs with 3gals of fuel.
Some stock Vmax800 would also like to know how they stack up.

Mine weighed 640# on a certified scale w/6 us gal. fuel. I don't really care what it weighs now, beacuse i have ridden it enough to know that it rides & handles much better than my CK3. It is not as easy to throw around as the mxz is but thats OK. Very nice sled, other than stock clutch tuning is out the window. The other thing is I am spoiled by having precision ski on the MXZ, so the RX1 will be getting a set of simmons skis.

MXZ900, have you played with your dyno yet?

I took my ZR and Vmax4 to a track dyno last week.
Very nice tuning tool, you can see the FULL shift of your clutching from 0~100mph track speed.