Polaris RZR Forum - RZR Forums.net banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm sure this has been asked many times but throwing it back out there. Mainly because I noticed a picture today of a RZR that had portals on it. Instead of mounting them vertically to give them a 4" lift they instead mounted the horizontally giving them 8" of additional wheel base (4" front + 4" back).

Has anyone heard of doing this ? Is it safe/strong ? Any other ideas such as offset a-arms or something else not mentioned?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
No, no, and no again. Portals are designed to be mounted vertically. Mounting them horizontally would create severe stress points and steering problems. I'm fairly certain it would void the warranty as well. I see ZERO benefits and ALL negatives to mounting portals horizontally. What say you @SuperATV

The correct way to stretch a 2 seater is to lengthen the frame. This can be done with an OEM 4 seater front frame clip or fabbed up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
No, no, and no again. Portals are designed to be mounted vertically. Mounting them horizontally would create severe stress points and steering problems. I'm fairly certain it would void the warranty as well. I see ZERO benefits and ALL negatives to mounting portals horizontally. What say you @SuperATV

The correct way to stretch a 2 seater is to lengthen the frame. This can be done with an OEM 4 seater front frame clip or fabbed up.
hahaha I agree with you about the added stress to the steering. I bet the portals hold up though...just not the rest of the machine. Especially the power steering and tie rods. Not sure if the rear would have as much strength.

On the other hand...does sound like a new product development opportunity for @SuperATV
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
That creates a huge leverage point on each portal. The impact load transferred off angle rather than straight vertically through the suspension.

Ah, that a big no for me 😜
 

·
Registered
2014 XP 1000 on portals
Joined
·
159 Posts
I thought of this for the back. 6” portals mounted at the right angle would give 4” up and 4.5” back. 8”, figure the angle for 4” lift, right at 7” back. Problem with 8” is you cant match gear reduction with 4” for the front. But both 4” and 6” are available in 30%. So you could do 4.5” back with portals, 2” back with trailing arms, and 2” forward with offset arms.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
So let's look at it from an engineering standpoint. With the below figure on the left 100% of the upward force is applied through the suspension (for this demonstration we are not concerned with the offset distance from the king pin). The below figure on the right a moment arm has been created between the axle center and the output shaft center. The upward force applied to the output shaft is transferred in a rotational arc to the suspension (centers of moments). This creates an additional force load M= F x D So a 400lb upward force applied to the output shaft with a 4" offset would create a 133lb/ft of torque. A 400lb upward force is fairly light, suppose to take a hard hit of 1000lb upward force, that calculates to 333ft/lb or rotational force.



672344
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
I've looked at my pro rear trailing arms and thought about more wheelbase. It might be possible to make some plates that would move the rear knuckles back 3 or 4 inches if the axles have enough spline. Would have to make some longer brake lines as well, and maybe increase the spring rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
That creates a huge leverage point on each portal. The impact load transferred off angle rather than straight vertically through the suspension.

Ah, that a big no for me 😜
So let's look at it from an engineering standpoint. With the below figure on the left 100% of the upward force is applied through the suspension (for this demonstration we are not concerned with the offset distance from the king pin). The below figure on the right a moment arm has been created between the axle center and the output shaft center. The upward force applied to the output shaft is transferred in a rotational arc to the suspension (centers of moments). This creates an additional force load M= F x D So a 400lb upward force applied to the output shaft with a 4" offset would create a 133lb/ft of torque. A 400lb upward force is fairly light, suppose to take a hard hit of 1000lb upward force, that calculates to 333ft/lb or rotational force.



View attachment 672344
Thanks for the visual aids! Keep in mind...you are still experiencing force applied through a rotational axis. You have to drive the machine forward and backwards, correct? If you are driving into and over rocks...there's a force when you initially approach the object. If you're driving into the thick mud or climbing up out of a deep rut...there's a force. Fricition from the weight and traction from the wheels and tires...there's a rotational force.

For the sake of science and comparison...I don't think 100% of the force is applied through the suspension. Perhaps 80%? On your other example...perhaps 50% ?
 

·
Contact: 855-743-3427
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
I'm thinking that's going to be a bad idea. The scrub radius is going to be pretty bad, and it would add a ton of stress on the ball joints. I think the cons outweigh the pros here. But...If it has been done somewhere, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
Thanks for the visual aids! Keep in mind...you are still experiencing force applied through a rotational axis.
Yes and no....so the suspension travels up absorbing the load. Forward/backward direction is fixed and has to transfer the load vertically. So yes it's not 100% but for the discussion we would assume so for demonstration purposes so you can see the additional force applied in the wrong direction. This will break $hit quickly 😆

Then if we talk about the steering loads and scrub radius it really would be apparent oh why it's a bad idea.

BTW- I'm simplifying things quite a bit to isolate the additional force.
 

·
Contact: 855-743-3427
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
I guess if you really wanted to do it, you could use the 4" portals in the front....installed correctly. Then you could clock the 6" portals in the rear to give you that offset. Both would have to be the 30% reduction to match up. That way you're getting your offset and not absolutely destroying your front end. We've played with that idea a little, but its super niche....and then you'd have to run a minimum of an 18" wheel to make it work with the 6"s. Which would start limit your tire choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
I'm thinking that's going to be a bad idea. The scrub radius is going to be pretty bad, and it would add a ton of stress on the ball joints. I think the cons outweigh the pros here. But...If it has been done somewhere, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Sounds like someone needs to do some R&D at the dirty turtle and let us know how it goes, or when so we can go watch!! 😁
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top