• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Is narrower really better?

F

Freeride1

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2007
488
133
43
49
New Hampshire
I have been riding my Pro RMK with a group of guys that have RMK Assaults which we all know are TALLER and WIDER than the normal PRO RMK. We rarely get good conditions so we make due with aht we have. One place we ride is a steep rock slide coverd with snow that has no runout at the base. It is mandatory that you put the sled on the panel and hold it there or go down through inpenatrable forest. I have had some days that I felt like the king of that spot and other day that I felt like a total kook compared to my friends on the Assaults. I have been trying to figure out if it is me or something to do with the geometry of the sleds we ride.

I have developed a theory:

The TALLER / WIDER assault is better for junk snow sidehilling.

WHY:

The wider front end which is harder to initially flop on to one ski actually can lock itself into a nasty first snow sidepanel carve better because it can get further over with the TALLER WIDER ski stance. My Pro RMK can sidehill in those conditions but it is harder to keep over there because it "PANELS OUT" sooner than the Assault.

The taller ride height and steeper angle of attack also help hold the sled over and create more clearance for the boards when at an extreme lean angle as well.


There one day my PRO RMK spanked the ASSAULTS was when we got a killer storm and the snow was deeper than any other day that year. I couldn't feel the base upsetting the chassis. I was able to effortlessly go out carve across tha face with a downhill turn in the midle of the hill and return to the right side where we have an entrance. I wasn't even winded like everyone usually gets riding that spot. That day the snow was so deep it cradled my side panel and my belly pan supporting it like a shelf. The Comp track was awful that day and the rest of the Assault riders struggled.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ME?

Next year when the assault gets a belt drive I will get one and run a 5.1 track early in the year than throw the Comp track on it in April. I will also mount the skid in the top hole until I swap to the Comp track. I will alway run the narrower stance which is just a little wider than the PRO RMK at full wide.

That same theory applies to why SKI DOOS behave poorly in anything but virgin powder. I have seen some really good ridiers try to follow us on Summits and they all behave the same. They just don't hold an edge in anything that isn't fluff.
 
Last edited:

Dartos

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 6, 2001
1,574
668
113
Craig, CO
Excellent description of the problem and I think you are on to something with your analysis.

If you, or someone in your group, has a GoPro (or similar) maybe you could rig it the front bumper or even the ski loop and the ride the hill. Swap to an assault and film it again. Then you could evaluate the footage and that may give you some additional insight as to what is happening.
 
L
Jul 27, 2011
148
58
28
34
www.facebook.com
While my sled was totaled last year, I use a number of different peoples pros. And I found that I LOVE the wide front end way more then the regular pro front end. I honestly cant stand the narrow stance, I feel like it tips to much for me. Also I can pull my wide stance front end over just as easy as the narrow stance, I really dont feel a difference with pulling it over. But I do feel more tippy on the pros front end.

I like your theory...
 

meathooker

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jan 4, 2008
1,651
616
113
Boise, ID
agreed! everyone seems to think they need a narrow front end, remove sway bar, and wide skis. IMO these are all a crutch to cover up riding. if we could side hill wedge and gen2 chassis with 43" front ends then a stock pro/assault shouldnt be a problem.

i use the same logic on my skis. the popular convention is SLP powder pros. i still like SLT's because i feel the narrow ski width allows the front end to bite into the snow better.
 

mountainhorse

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2005
18,606
11,814
113
West Coast
www.laketahoeconcours.com
Narrow front ends will not sidehill better... not what they were designed for... but they are easier to throw around in tight situations.

Excellent description.

This situation was exaserbated even more on the dragons... the Assaults would "anchor" the uphill ski better and have less panel in the snow trying to push you off your line... The pro will still panel-out... but to a much lesser degree... the narrow fronts will panel out sooner than the wider fronts.





.
 
F

Freeride1

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2007
488
133
43
49
New Hampshire
Another supporting factor in my theory is the use of sway bars. THe sway bar keep the suspension from collapsing when the sled is up on one ski. When the suspension collapses it makes the sled wider and lower like a flat tracker. I had friend that added sway bars to their assaults and swore it was better at sidehilling after. Seems logical.

My M7 was amazing at full narrow but it wouldn't lay on its side and stick to the wall with any effeciency. It felt like a jet ski just riding around doing little carves though and a swore it was the best setup at the time but now I don't think so much.

Personally I don't think ski doo will ever sidehill properly until they ditch the 16"track and widen the ski stance. The flexable track and articulating skid will make it feel tippy and fun but not actually hold an edge for a long distance in firm snow. It will still be a ski doo you have to manhandle. They even bandaided that issue with the extra far foreward running board but that won't fix the problem with the geometry of the sleds skis/panels/boards/track at extreme lean angles.


I just wanted to share my thoughts. I don't know if it means anything but thats what goes through my head when I am riding around in my truck thinking of winter.
 
Last edited:
5

550iq

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2008
558
188
43
Anchorage, Alaska
Along with A-arm width, I'd like to think engine placement is vital to how a sled banks in to hold an edge or the wall as it was described. A low setting engine/drive train will be harder to rotate and stay up versus a higher setting engine/drive train. This is Ski Doo's problem and the cause of their trickery. My problem with being too wide is that when the sled does rotate over, the wider front actually lifts the forward part of the track off the surface (straight line from A-arm to rear of track) and the lose of traction the result. Too narrow, too wide; flat tracking trail sled, cannot lay over in the snow...got to love it. 550iq
 
G

gman086

Well-known member
Feb 5, 2008
1,347
572
113
Portland, OR
Personally I don't think ski doo will ever sidehill properly until they ditch the 16"track and widen the ski stance. The flexable track and articulating skid will make it feel tippy and fun but not actually hold an edge for a long distance in firm snow. It will still be a ski doo you have to manhandle. They even bandaided that issue with the extra far foreward running board but that won't fix the problem with the geometry of the sleds skis/panels/boards/track at extreme lean angles.

Doos ski stance is an inch narrower than BOTH the Pro and M8 yet it sidehills worse. If you do my track cut (post #3 here http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=269948), and widen the ski stance, it transforms it into a sidehilling fool. Your "theory" has been confirmed by me many times over and is fact. Also I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the new XM which I had the privilege to ride last season for a day in hard snow conditions. It was a nightmare compared to the Pro because of the forward weight; finding the balance point was like trying to do the lambada - you really have to get way forward in those footwell cutouts. I was a Doo guy for years so this isn't coming from some brand blind Poo loyalist by any means. The whole narrower ski stance and huge ape-hanger risers that most Doo riders use is an absolute joke. Wider ski stance, 15" wide LUGS and lower, more forward bars is the key.

Have FUN!

G MAN
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Niko

Well-known member
This makes a lot of sense, in oz we get not much pow and end up playing in the hard pack/wet slush still trying our luck sidehilling on the steeps. I've noticed my assault will hold a sidehill so easy, the balance point is very wide.
Only issue on the trail I feel I'm too high off the ground when sitting which I try not to do.
 
F
Oct 19, 2011
191
26
28
I have been riding my Pro RMK with a group of guys that have RMK Assaults which we all know are TALLER and WIDER than the normal PRO RMK. We rarely get good conditions so we make due with aht we have. One place we ride is a steep rock slide coverd with snow that has no runout at the base. It is mandatory that you put the sled on the panel and hold it there or go down through inpenatrable forest. I have had some days that I felt like the king of that spot and other day that I felt like a total kook compared to my friends on the Assaults. I have been trying to figure out if it is me or something to do with the geometry of the sleds we ride.

I have developed a theory:

The TALLER / WIDER assault is better for junk snow sidehilling.

WHY:

The wider front end which is harder to initially flop on to one ski actually can lock itself into a nasty first snow sidepanel carve better because it can get further over with the TALLER WIDER ski stance. My Pro RMK can sidehill in those conditions but it is harder to keep over there because it "PANELS OUT" sooner than the Assault.

The taller ride height and steeper angle of attack also help hold the sled over and create more clearance for the boards when at an extreme lean angle as well.


There one day my PRO RMK spanked the ASSAULTS was when we got a killer storm and the snow was deeper than any other day that year. I couldn't feel the base upsetting the chassis. I was able to effortlessly go out carve across tha face with a downhill turn in the midle of the hill and return to the right side where we have an entrance. I wasn't even winded like everyone usually gets riding that spot. That day the snow was so deep it cradled my side panel and my belly pan supporting it like a shelf. The Comp track was awful that day and the rest of the Assault riders struggled.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ME?

Next year when the assault gets a belt drive I will get one and run a 5.1 track early in the year than throw the Comp track on it in April. I will also mount the skid in the top hole until I swap to the Comp track. I will alway run the narrower stance which is just a little wider than the PRO RMK at full wide.

That same theory applies to why SKI DOOS behave poorly in anything but virgin powder. I have seen some really good ridiers try to follow us on Summits and they all behave the same. They just don't hold an edge in anything that isn't fluff.

This place you describe sounds awfully familiar to the "bowl" , maggaloway fire tower, in NH. Am I correct?
 

Chewy22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 17, 2009
1,987
1,356
113
Montana
Doos ski stance is an inch narrower than BOTH the Pro and M8 yet it sidehills worse. If you do my track cut (post #3 here http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=269948), and widen the ski stance, it transforms it into a sidehilling fool. Your "theory" has been confirmed by me many times over and is fact. Also I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the new XM which I had the privilege to ride last season for a day in hard snow conditions. It was a nightmare compared to the Pro because of the forward weight; finding the balance point was like trying to do the lambada - you really have to get way forward in those footwell cutouts. I was a Doo guy for years so this isn't coming from some brand blind Poo loyalist by any means. The whole narrower ski stance and huge ape-hanger risers that most Doo riders use is an absolute joke. Wider ski stance, 15" wide LUGS and lower, more forward bars is the key.

Have FUN!

G MAN



G Man just to be clear, you do the same cut on your Pro track? Similar results as u found w/ ur doos? I'm assuming so just wanted to clarify.

Also it would seem a 163 track would sidehill better then a 155. Reduce the paneling out affect. No experience just an observation.
 
V

Vinnee

Well-known member
Dec 24, 2010
174
128
43
Hmmm? Really interesting and an excellent perspective! I have the wider "Assault" suspension on my 163 pro and everyone always asks; "Do you like that wider suspension. Isn't it harder to side-hill"?

I typically just look at them with a blank stare, because honestly I think it sidehills better! However, I haven't ever taken the time to try and understand if my perception is reality or simply perception. And without a legitimate reason for my answer, I typically just respond with "Ya, it seems to be ok"!?

But inside I'm thinking.... HECK Ya...! It's BAD AZZ!
 
G

Going West

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2007
1,212
643
113
Canada
Unless you are paneling out, the narrow stance will side hill easier then the wider stance. And most riders do not panel out there sled on any kind of regular basis or ever.
 

Ski-Dont89

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Mar 2, 2010
749
313
63
WYOMING
Unless you are paneling out, the narrow stance will side hill easier then the wider stance. And most riders do not panel out there sled on any kind of regular basis or ever.


thats kind of what i was thinking...i cant wait to compare my 36 kit on my 13 to my dads stock 11 and see which one i end up preferring. if you ask me i really dont think it matters too much in the end. If you are a good enough rider its not going to matter on this good of a chassis how wide the front end is.
 
Last edited:

apex jeff

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Mar 2, 2009
256
128
43
columbia falls mt
Freeride1,this may be a little off topic,but bear with me. Several key words and phrasing in the OP made me nervous, especially.... steep rock slide with no run out at all and an inpenetrable forest at the base. Being a western rider this sends off a tempting technical challenge,but also a serious terrain trap for avalanche danger. I hope your group is taking the proper precautions.

As for the OP question, you answered it in your text. Somedays the Pro dominates somedays the Assault, it has just as much to do with snow conditions as chassis designs.


Ride safe have fun!

Jeff
 

Rick!

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
793
334
63
Another supporting factor in my theory is the use of sway bars. THe sway bar keep the suspension from collapsing when the sled is up on one ski. When the suspension collapses it makes the sled wider and lower like a flat tracker. I had friend that added sway bars to their assaults and swore it was better at sidehilling after. Seems logical.

My M7 was amazing at full narrow but it wouldn't lay on its side and stick to the wall with any effeciency. It felt like a jet ski just riding around doing little carves though and a swore it was the best setup at the time but now I don't think so much.

RMK Pro - swaybar, 100lb/in IFS springs
RMK Assault - no swaybar, 130lb/in IFS springs

Sidehilling in powder the sway bar may not be providing much help as the downhill ski is hanging out and not providing much of a reaction for the uphill ski.
In the right conditions, a heavier springed IFS with no sway bar goes through junk in a more stable manner than a softer setup, given the proper shock valving.
 
Premium Features