What are you riding

I ride a 96 big bear and it's been a real solid machine. The only complaint is the drum brakes - they suck. Had a mechanic give it a going over last year and was told that I should be able to get another 10 years out of it.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by Muskeg

pretty sure your horse won't make it through a few miles of muskeg and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to swim my quad across a river! I'd have to say in either situation we would be walkin home alone!

Well said, Muskeg. As long as we're out there, havin' fun and doing it responsibly that's all that really matters.

[-JR-]

Thanks everyone for your input,including Duffy4.
Since I will only be using it for one week max a year ,I will be going for the old Honda fourtrax.

[raised by wolves]

I like my Stumpjumper MTN bike. Useless for hauling anything out, but you can cover ground really quickly and quietly. No laws that ban its use like those pertaining to quads.

[sparky660]

Don't let the SRA thing scare you away from a IRS quad. I have towed some huge loads with IRS quads and they do sag but nothing to worry about. I will post a picture tomorrow of my grizzly with my tub trailer that has 5-5gallon jerry cans full of fuel, 2- 5 gallon water bottles, wall tent, chainsaw, 2 coolers full of food and booze, and misc. camping stuff. The Grizzly 700 squatted 1/2 an inch with all that gear with the preload on the spring in the stock position(2nd softest). The pros that the the IRS offers by far outways the thought of riding a SRA. The old ones sagged real bad but the new ones will still give you the same clearance and usually more when loaded up and offer a superior ride. As for stability on most trails, to our hunting and camping spots, if they are smooth I can travel easily 70 kmh and be very stable.

Don't let the SRA thing scare you away from a IRS quad. I have towed some huge loads with IRS quads and they do sag but nothing to worry about.

We were talking about sag when the load is carried on the racks,not when towing a trailer.

[sparky660]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

We were talking about sag when the load is carried on the racks,not when towing a trailer.

What's the difference? The rear suspension still has to carry the load and the tongue weight of my loaded trailer which is more than you can possibly safely carry on your racks front and back. I also forgot to mention that both racks are loaded up going into camp.

What's the difference? The rear suspension still has to carry the load and the tongue weight of my loaded trailer is more than you can possibly safely carry on your racks front and back.

It is quite safe to carry 300lbs total on the two racks. The generally recommended tongue weight is 10% to 15% of the total trailer weight.So that would mean that your total trailer weight would have to be 3000lbs to 4500lbs to match the 300lb load placed on the racks.So how often do you tow a 3000lb to 4500lb trailer over rough terrain with your quad?

[sparky660]

If we are going by recommended weight that is a different story. If we go by that the recommended, load if I remember correclty, is 80 lbs on my front rack and 100 lbs on my rear. So then, no, you cannot safely haul 300 lbs on your racks. The whole point of my post, which you seem to have missed stubble, is that a IRS can haul just as much load as a SRA and maintian as much ground clearance and usually more while maintaining a safe haul. If you are heave enough of a load that you bottom out a new IRS quad you will ruin the axle on your SRA by eating out the bearings in the rear end and the swing arm.

If we are going by recommended weight that is a different story. If we go by that, the recommended load if I remember correclty is 80 lbs on my front rack and 100 lbs on my rear. So then, no, you cannot safely haul 300 lbs on your racks.

If you want to go strictly by rack and towing ratings,the honda rack weight ratings are 66lb and 133lb for a total of 199lb.The grizzly 660 has a towing rating of 1212lbs.10% of that would be 121 lbs and 15% of that would be 181lbs,both short of the combined 199lbs.

The whole point of my post, which you seem to have missed stubble, is that a IRS can haul just as much load as a SRA and maintian as much ground clearance and usually more while maintaining a safe haul.

You are using the rack ratings as the maximum safe haul limit,so let's compare those rack ratings.Your larger more powerful IFS machine has a lower rear rack rating(100lbs) than the solid axle Honda(133lbs).Why do you suppose that your IFS machine has only 75% of the rear rack rating of the solid axle honda?

[Frans]

A Raleigh mountain bike. A bit awkward when carrying a big pack, but really an asset when I want to go check out a drainage far away on a ay trip. Especially coming back.... there are few things as enjoyable as getting on a bike and roling it downhill, after a 25 km hike.

Frans

[sparky660]

For the Grizzly 700 the front rack is 99lbs and the rear is 187 lbs, which after looking it up, is the same as the Grizzly 660 so the combined rack weight is actually 286 lbs. That is darn near 100lbs more than the honda SRA. Towing weight is 1212lbs like you said for the Grizzly 660 and the 700. The towing capacity of the Foreman 500 is 850lbs and the foreman(633lbs) is 33lbs heavier than the Grizzly 700(600lbs).

[sparky660]

Now I am getting cocky. Here is a better comparison of quads in the same catagory. The new Grizzly 550 just released a couple of weeks ago by Yamaha has a rack capacity of 99 lbs on the front, 187 lbs on the rear, and 1322 lbs towing. How does your SRA foreman 500 compare to those numbers? Still looks like the independant suspension has better towing capabilities and is 33 lbs less as the 550 is the same weight as the 700. I feel that maybe the towing capacity of 1322 lbs is a misprint as it is more than the 700 so for safety sake I will assume that it is the same as the Grizzly 700 at 1212 which is still 362lbs more than the foreman 500.

foreman(633lbs) is 33lbs heavier than the Grizzly 700(600lbs).

Perhaps you didn't notice that the Yamaha 700 data specifies 600lbs dry weight,while the Honda foreman 500 data specifies from (619lbs to 637lbs depending on the specific model) curb weight,with all fluids,including a full tank of fuel.
When you add the weight of the oils(engine,differentials),coolant and a full tank of fuel to the grizzly the Grizzly is actually heavier.

[sparky660]

Good point I missed that. Curb weight is 648lbs on the GRizzly 550/700. But I am still rated for more towing and rack capacity than the Honda Foreman and the 550 is in the exact same class. So the myth that a SRA can haul more than a IRS is just that, a myth.

And regardless of the rack ratings,I have on many occasions hauled a quarter of moose or elk on each rack 200lbs to 400lbs total,and on one occasion a half an elk on each rack totaling about 500lbs with no problems at all.Several friends have hauled just as much or more for many years with their rubicons and foremans,with no problems at all.The one thing that was common in all cases,is that other than tire bulge,no ground clearance was lost due to the loads.

Good point I missed that. Curb weight is 648lbs on the GRizzly 700. I still am rated or more towing and rack capacity than the Honda Forman.

And you are still comparing a 700 to a 500.

And contrary to your earlier post,the safe tongue weight for the grizzly is not more than the total rated rack loads for the Honda.

[sparky660]

Sorry, I had to go back and edit my previous post as I missed saying the weights are the same as the 550.

[sparky660]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

And regardless of the rack ratings,I have on many occasions hauled a quarter of moose or elk on each rack 200lbs to 400lbs total,and on one occasion a half an elk on each rack totaling about 500lbs with no problems at all.Several friends have hauled just as much or more for many years with their rubicons and foremans,with no problems at all.The one thing that was common in all cases,is that other than tire bulge,no ground clearance was lost due to the loads.

That I do agree with you not losing any ground clearance with a SRA but the Grizzly starts with 11.8 inch's of ground clearance and most SRA quads only have on average 9 inch's. For me to get below the 9" mark I will severly overload the machine. So at worst case, I might sag to the 9 inchs, but in all likely hood I will still maintain more ground clearance with an equivelant load.

[sparky660]

Originally Posted by stubblejumper

And you are still comparing a 700 to a 500.

And contrary to your earlier post,the safe tongue weight for the grizzly is not more than the total rated rack loads for the Honda.

That is true, I was incorrect, but as I have proved the IRS machines like the 550 Grizzly is more than capable of hauling heavy loads than some think are only limited to a SRA.

A demonstration of reduced ground clearance when loading an atv with irs.
Do you suppose that this atv is slightly overloaded?

[sparky660]

Picture doesn't show up for me and to to cut and paste the link doesn't work either.

Try this link and scroll down to the rhino with the moose in back.

http://www.dootalk.com/forums/lofive...p/t226453.html

[sparky660]

I will have to check it out in the morning as my work computer won't let me see the picks. If it is the same one that required 3 people on the front to steer it I assume that there might be a slight chance that it is overloaded.

[Rackmastr]

I ride a 2007 John Deere LA110, 42" deck....various cut heights.....that sucker cuts grass with the best of em!!!

Okay....so thats as close to an ATV as I've got right now.....but it sure looks pretty doin circles on the front lawn!!

[Traps]

An IRS bike is not very good on side hills, SRA's are better on the side hills. If you take a look at the two types of suspension's the SRA's have two things going for them, they will have a larger distance (width of the solid axle) to support the weight which makes them more stable, and the springs are more in line with the axle (usually). On the other hand the IRS pivots on either side of the frame which is roughly half the distance of the solid rear axle and in many cases the springs are angled.

I had the TRX 350 (solid front and rears) and now have the IRS rincon, no comparison on the side hills, the old tank anyday.

[Traps]

One other thing, the IRS of the non-Honda bikes makes this more of an issue because the center of gravity on "other" bikes are much higher, so when you add weight to the racks it just makes the problem that much worse. Honda's have always been known to handle much better and feel more stable than "other" quads. Like anything one bikes gain is another's loss and they all have their plus and minues.

[sparky660]

Finally got to look at the picture and yeah I would say that the Rhino is slightly overloaded.

[funseeker]

Is anyone familiar with the ATV/UTV's from Motobishi?

[sparky660]

Originally Posted by Traps

One other thing, the IRS of the non-Honda bikes makes this more of an issue because the center of gravity on "other" bikes are much higher, so when you add weight to the racks it just makes the problem that much worse. Honda's have always been known to handle much better and feel more stable than "other" quads. Like anything one bikes gain is another's loss and they all have their plus and minues.

The honda RIncon is by far the most stable bike at speeds that I ever rode, even compared the the Can-am line. With that being said though they also don't have much ground clearance for mud riding and clearing logs and other obstacles. Generally with one you lose the other. I have taken the Grizzly on hills that most will spin out before they get to where I have gone. So It might not be as stable as others but it if you get to that point it is unsafe for any machine to be on.