<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GMAvA0eDJvM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
DirtWheels Mag Sport UTV Shootout - Wildcat Vs. XP900 Vs. Commander
- Thread starter JoeyD23
- Start date
Not quite sure why they would use a Commander XT versus the X model if they wanted a more accurate comparison of so called "sport" versus sport. And if the Commander is indeed considered a "sport" model (even though it is equipped with a DUMP BED & winch), then why is the Kawasaki Teryx not present as well?
Just sayin...
Just sayin...
From what I read the T4 is a complete redesign not comparable to the 2 seater that would not stack up at all. There calling it a “Recreational UTV†frame and chassis needed a redesign from the 2 seater to not hinder “performance†Agree, what a weird mix why not a T4 then, I think they are all confused trying to find the next market , next up “ Factory Race Ready UTV†..just like quads in 2004. Competition makes better end products at lower cost it’s all good!
If its a sport UTV comparison then it should just be between the XP and Wildcat. Can Am doesn't have a true competitive sport UTV when comparing suspension..... YET
Can Am is going to wait until i dump about 20k into my Commander,,,THEN they will come out with a sport model.
Speaking of Can-am and chassis, Can dam was the pioneer in the quad world, 2008, to release the first aluminum frame, no welds. They used a type of blind bolt called the “huck” that is stronger than a steel weld but it’s a permanent installation installed by a Huck gun(see below) often used in aircraft. It’s blind since the areas they used it had limited access, small frames. They also used a lot of strong extrusions rectangular cross sections, little tubing, and large casting’s for strength and to consolidate parts. Al didn’t lend itself to welding since they did not use 6061-T6 al weld king, or repairs, but it had high strength to weight ratio surpassing steel designs by 5-10 lbs. They used clad or anodizing to prevent corrosion. Other OEM quad and bike soon followed. Surprised their UTV line has not seen it YET, I think as the industry leans out to more race ready competition weight will become a market target. Agree, Articat/ Popo are the only two close to “sport” now, but don’t under estimate Can-am and Bombardia Aircraft.
Huck Bolts, Fasteners and Rivets
Huck Bolts, Fasteners and Rivets
Back in 2003 we built race quads for $20-22K w/carbs. In 2004, Yamaha & Honda released the debuted “race ready quads” EFI did not need arms, etc, cutting race cost out of the factory drastically! By 2008 when Can-am unveiled the “DS450” first Al chassis you could buy the same quad we built in 2003 for around $9-10K of show room floor, cut in half in four years. By then Kawi, Suk were also on board, 5 big OEMs competing that helped the race tracks and industry globally. The most cost effective way to reduce cost is on the assembly line not in after market, also the most robust design in most cases. Many of the same after market companies were hit hard, forced them to cost reduction designs and innovative the OEM would not perform such as hole shot devices, specialty a-arms like Houser that auto adjust caster, etc….I’m guessing this happens to the UTV industry next. It is already thanks to the XP900.Can Am is going to wait until i dump about 20k into my Commander,,,THEN they will come out with a sport model.
BRP (aka Can-Am) is not part of Bombardier Inc anymore(aka aircraft and transport). The parent company spun off BRP in 2003 by selling it to an investment group and family members.
My opinion is that you have to be very careful of using aluminum in off road. If the part is subjected to flex (as most off road parts are) it can be a BIG problem, as the fatigue life of aluminum is significantly shorter than steel. For example competition bicycles only have a 'life' of five years before they are junk...eg crack. Think of how long it takes to to fail a paper clip by bending it back in forth versus say a beer can.
The other factor is stiffness which is measured in modulus. Steel's modulus is 3x that of aluminum, but steel weighs 3x more than aluminum. Aluminum is also more expensive than steel. Sooo...what you end up with here is an aluminum part that has to be much bigger than it's steel counterpart to achieve the same strength with the same weigh. When you use more of a more expensive material, you end up with a more expensive product that may have a shorter life. Aluminum does have advantages in that you can cast it, forge it, extrude it with less expensive tooling into some creative parts that are strong and light.
But there is a reason that Trophy Truck frames are not made of aluminum and there is a reason why most desert and woods ATV racers with a straight axle rear suspension change their aluminum swingarms to chromoly.
My 2 pesos.
I agree as all of the shootouts I have seen since the Commander came out use the "XT" model instead of the closest to sport "X" model.Not quite sure why they would use a Commander XT versus the X model if they wanted a more accurate comparison of so called "sport" versus sport. And if the Commander is indeed considered a "sport" model (even though it is equipped with a DUMP BED & winch), then why is the Kawasaki Teryx not present as well?
Just sayin...
O really I didn’t know that about Bombaria and BRP.
Agree aluminum is tricky and takes some ingenuity to design to stiffness and fatigue, but that’s not always the load case. It’s all over most commercial and military aircraft, I know first hand these big giants can afford the design, manufacturing, testing such as fatigue tools the auto and powersports industry cannot. Aircraft AL is designed to 30 + year fatigue life, powersports less than third of that, biggest cost being corrosion not raw material, hence why composites are taking over. For one USAF example, we made the B2 bomber(flying wing) wing transfer box behind the cockpit out of AL that sees over a million lbs of transfer load, lots of flex, and high fatigue cycles.
I’ve followed the DS450 since its 2008 unveiling, we own a 08 DS450 and raced it in the upper national MX classes, my son has put it through a beating as many other pro bike/quad racers little to no issues. Hey, I also own a Cannondale bicycle for 15 years now no issues although I don’t compete. We have seen steel quad/bike frames have issues at the welds where knock down factors of mechanical properties apply. Often, the OEM puts welds at high stress/strain fatigue areas like arm attachments and joints. The XP900 trailing arm, the factory hand welds are so bad a knock down of 60% modulus would be a minimum, a huck fastener through al stronger. You could challenge it to a high speed 7075-T6 machined part if the billet size if not too large for greater stiffness and less fatigue, it may be stiff enough to eliminate the radius rods and prove a total cost reduction by part consolidation. XP900 front steel a-arm attach chassis has issues.
Although you raise some good points, comparing a paper clip to a beer can as fatigue analysis is very crude and misleading. Fatigue live is very dependant on such factors as type of applied load, geometry, alloy, temper, fabrication, temperature, as seen in MIL-Handbook-5 S-N curves, further defined by dynamic loading(as in reversing, compression then tension), average stress vs localized, etc) and mission, very difficult to predict the “actual” life of any material design in service in some cases impossible, although the al modulus is 1/3 steel. If you look at bending, tension, shear, compression , crack probagation, and some other properties depending on design loads and allowables, aluminum can show the design good and cost effective exceeding steels strength-to-weight.
We use a lot of cres steel and ti around aircraft engines since it takes the temp fatigue cycles. We investment cast it and titanium often for the same cost as aluminum and we extrude it readily. Currently I am struggling with machineing Nitronic 60 steel looking at aluminum for a cost reduction, so raw material is just a part of the producibilty cost especially in mass production.
Last edited:
TNT, good points and well written!
My main point is that aluminum can be stronger than steel, but the type of alloy, heat treat and the design of the part are all key! A UTV frame would be very tricky to make out of aluminum IMO. Off road vehicles do flex and flex isn't a good thing with aluminum. An ATV or a dirt bike chassis can be made to be extremely stiff and due to the light weight of the vehicle and short distance from the steering head to the swingarm pivot, you can reduce the flex and thus have a reasonable fatigue life.
Anyway...back to the Dirt Wheels shootout thread!
My main point is that aluminum can be stronger than steel, but the type of alloy, heat treat and the design of the part are all key! A UTV frame would be very tricky to make out of aluminum IMO. Off road vehicles do flex and flex isn't a good thing with aluminum. An ATV or a dirt bike chassis can be made to be extremely stiff and due to the light weight of the vehicle and short distance from the steering head to the swingarm pivot, you can reduce the flex and thus have a reasonable fatigue life.
Anyway...back to the Dirt Wheels shootout thread!
I wish there was more of DW shootout review to get back to, so we make our own.
Agreed, if this “race ready†UTV market takes off like I think it will targeting the upper classes as it did quads stating that, “off the show room floor a pro can race our UTV†stock classes will continue to rise as they already are. That statement will not be entirely true based on the quad releases; it won’t be pro ready but close. Most upper class racers don’t race frames past one season, not only is it not safe but it can cost a championship in reliability, therefore the fatigue life will be short lived 1-2 years unlike most recreational designs making it easier to design to.
I remember the BRP DS450 release video some bean counter program manager laid down some requirements that the design had to be a target weight, cost, mission to compete at upper classes, etc, their Engineers made it happen not only an MX model but XC model race model no one else offered both. I got an opportunity to get to know the BRP chief engineer and spent a lot of time helping racers with set-up, repairs, etc. The PM said the DS450 development time was 5 years which I believe to a point since Hon, YAM, Suk, had released designs four years prior and everyone had their eye on them, timing is everything.
Putting that in perspective, the XP900 was released last year to me that seems to have started the ball rolling, Ariticat has jumped on board, that’s all we have for anything close to race ready, so IMO the next big step is innovation in the weight-to-power area. It would not surprise me if an aluminum frame is already being developed although I hear what you’re saying it is not standard. Ten years ago we never thought we fly around in a plastic skin airplane, Boeing Dreamliner just recently certified and is the wave of the future aircraft. Seems as though the auto and powersports industry follows aircraft, as soon as CFRP(Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) fiber placement cost comes down, very light and strong, it will hit the auto/powersports industry next.
I hope heavy steel goes away, weight comes down, power continues to go up, so some of these racers can actually get some air and speed making the sport more spectator friendly attracting more fans to the race venues, and TV rating’s.
Last edited: