• 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.

16 driveshaft 3" vs 2.6" comparison

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
Noticed at the sneak peak tonight the 3" w chaincase has a steel driveshaft and the 2.6 has the aluminum shaft with the collar. The chaincase looks small. No sight glass. Anyone know the weight difference between the aluminum and steel shafts, at least on the old pro? I had my mind set on the 3" but the paddles felt soft and might fold over easier w wear. Matt Entz really talked me into going for the 2.6. With already having a 3" cat Im prob gonna go 2.6. Also looks like the 2.6 has better grade bolts for the belt drive pulleys over the pro.

Suspension felt better in the rear too, maybe from having a rear clicker, but definitely didnt sag like the pro does. The rails even though swiss cheese looked thick and strong in the right areas. Black tunnel is matte finish while orange was a gloss finish. Prob will shed snow a little different
 

FriscoProx

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 29, 2007
753
191
43
I was there during the conversation with Matt. He had some really good information and my take from what he said was most of the QD issues were resolved in 2013, problems with the drive shafts were resolved when Poo added the collar, field changing a QD belt if necessary is not a big deal, and the 2.6 track is awesome.

Overall the new AXYS is sick. Perfect weapon for the trees. May be a handful for non-technical riders; it's tall, narrow and will pull right over, in other words - fun as hell. It has a huge sweet spot to balance on one ski. I pushed an SKS over and easily held it balanced with one hand on the side panel while sticking my head under it to look at the tunnel cooler. Something i'd never expect to do with a sled but it just stayed balanced on one ski.

And the 3.0 track did feel soft. The 2.6 on the other hand will not fold over, if anything it may be a little on the stiff side. But those are room temperature observations of brand new tracks.
 

mountainhorse

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2005
18,606
11,814
113
West Coast
www.laketahoeconcours.com
With the collar on the Aluminum driveshaft... which I still can't believe that they run on the sled, like wearing a bandaid for 4 years.... The Steel shaft really is not much of a penalty... I cant remember where I saw the numbers... but it was in the neighborhood of 10oz diff, if my recollection is correct.





.
 

LPIdaho

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
1,069
271
83
IF,ID
With the collar on the Aluminum driveshaft... which I still can't believe that they run on the sled, like wearing a bandaid for 4 years.... The Steel shaft really is not much of a penalty... I cant remember where I saw the numbers... but it was in the neighborhood of 10oz diff, if my recollection is correct.
.

Steel is 170g or .37lb heavier vs Aluminum w/ collar
 

LPIdaho

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
1,069
271
83
IF,ID
Steel is 170g or .37lb heavier vs Aluminum w/ collar

I would also bet from an inertia stand point the Aluminum probably has an equal to, or larger moment of inertia axially. So the steel might be a bit heavier, but it might not take any more energy to spin.
 

sledheader

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 18, 2013
1,529
748
113
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
I would also bet from an inertia stand point the Aluminum probably has an equal to, or larger moment of inertia axially. So the steel might be a bit heavier, but it might not take any more energy to spin.

I believe you meant to say radially. Also, moment of inertia has everything to do with physical cross section, and nothing to do with weight.

Aluminum has a higher modulus of elasticity than a standard grade steel such as A992 or is "stiffer". Chromoly is a different story. I don't know the specs on the two driveshafts but this is some general information you can keep in the back of your mind when comparing the two.
 

10003514

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 17, 2007
1,233
777
113
34
British Columbia
I'd be interested in knowing why the polaris guys are pushing the 2.6 inch track over the 3 inch so much. In my experience the 3 inch tracks out perform anything on the deep days in BC snow. I'd rather have a track aimed at the deep days and take the penalty on low snow days, which on low snow days you can go anywhere with any track. Why take the penalty on deep days with the 2.6 but have better hook up on low snow days ?

Is it a combination of lighter weight(over the 3 inch), stiffer paddle (did polaris make the 3 inch to soft?), and the QD (over chaincase) that make a better overall combo ? All the other manufactures are sold on the 3 inch tracks or does polaris want to showcase the axys as not needing a 3 inch track to beat the competition?

Anyways will be interesting to see next winter if guys notice any major difference between a 2.6 setup and 3 inch setup.
 

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
Not sure. I did notice about finger width clearance to bulkhead on 3" (prob 1/2").

3" has the aluminum rear bumper, and 2.6 has the carbon fiber bumper.

3" snow flap was beefy with no holes and shaped like a scoop, where the 2.6 is holed out and very light.

With the minimal weight for the steel driveshaft, just interesting they didn't put it on the 2.6. Didn't look at what was on the sks
 

LPIdaho

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
1,069
271
83
IF,ID
I'd be interested in knowing why the polaris guys are pushing the 2.6 inch track over the 3 inch so much.

Really?

Their chart explains it pretty well.

Although in BC the 20% of riding might be more like 60% of riding with the snowfall you guys receive.

563ef3965bb7621a2252c55006b52d5a.jpg
 
Last edited:

LPIdaho

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
1,069
271
83
IF,ID
I believe you meant to say radially. Also, moment of inertia has everything to do with physical cross section, and nothing to do with weight.

Aluminum has a higher modulus of elasticity than a standard grade steel such as A992 or is "stiffer". Chromoly is a different story. I don't know the specs on the two driveshafts but this is some general information you can keep in the back of your mind when comparing the two.

Actually moment of inertia has everything to do with mass(weight) as well as cross-section.

Also Aluminum is not as stiff as steels that is absolutely false. In fact steel is almost 3X as "stiff" per modulus alone.
 

sledheader

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 18, 2013
1,529
748
113
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
You were right on modulus of elasticity. In my field I use primarily steel and had the MOE of aluminum confused.

However moment of inertia has zero to do with weight. Please provide a calculation of moment of inertia that includes anything but dimensional properties. Two exact same cross sections, one of rubber and one of steel, have the exact same moment of inertia. For a rectangular cross section, moment of inertia is the base multiplied by the height cubed divided by twelve. Where in there is mass? It's not. Also, mass and weight are not the same thing, as your post implies.
 

LPIdaho

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
1,069
271
83
IF,ID
You were right on modulus of elasticity. In my field I use primarily steel and had the MOE of aluminum confused.

However moment of inertia has zero to do with weight. Please provide a calculation of moment of inertia that includes anything but dimensional properties. Two exact same cross sections, one of rubber and one of steel, have the exact same moment of inertia. For a rectangular cross section, moment of inertia is the base multiplied by the height cubed divided by twelve. Where in there is mass? It's not. Also, mass and weight are not the same thing, as your post implies.

They are the same in our messed up US Customary units. 1lb mass = 1lb force, we all memorized that in engineering school.

And as far as moment of inertia neither of us is wrong but we are not referring to the same moment of inertia. You are referring to area moment and i'm referring to mass moment Area moment is for structural calculations, mass moment is for dynamic calculations which I used since I was referring to the energy it takes to spin the driveshaft.

Thanks for making me have to remember all the edumacation I paid for :face-icon-small-coo
 
D

doudea

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2009
225
181
43
Western Slope
The guys that were at the sneak peak last night, you have any pictures to post up?

Would be appreciated:face-icon-small-hap
 
Premium Features