• 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.

How many would want narrower A Arms??

What A Arm width would you prefer?

  • Standard width

    Votes: 63 54.3%
  • Narrower width

    Votes: 53 45.7%

  • Total voters
    116

cwbyup_22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
364
145
43
Park City, MT
I talked to Dan at Alternative Impact about his A Arms, he said he may do a narrower ski stance for the PRO's if there is enough interest, how many guys would prefer a little narrower ski stance??
 

8emup

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 10, 2007
137
81
28
Utah
As I was riding my XP today I was wondering what my pro would be like with narrower a-arms. It would probably be deadly on the trail getting or out, it's already super tippy. I need to go look at the over all width of the plastic and see what the effect might be if the skis got narrower.
 

cwbyup_22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
364
145
43
Park City, MT
I don't think it is needed but I think it would take it to the next level for really technical riding especially being 8 lbs lighter in the front end I think the plastic is narrow enough you could go 1-2 in narrower and not have the plastic digging into the snow
 

jakey-boy

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jan 10, 2009
1,447
787
113
Idaho Falls
instagram.com
For me the balance on this sled is perfect. Any narrower wouldn't be worth giving up the trail riding and jumping ability of the sled. Personally I think on the Ski-doo especially and on the 1100t cats that the narrow a-arms are just a band-aid for a bigger problem which is an incorrect balance or a heavy sled. On the pro its light enough and has a perfect balance as is. For me they definitely wouldn't be necessary and I can't see myself liking them at all but I am more about the all around riding. Just tight technical tree riding if that is 100% all I did I can see them maybe working. Just remember if you narrow them you usually have to replace radius rods and shorten your shocks as well which can get expensive in a hurry.
 

skibreeze

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 4, 2005
10,463
3,477
113
Colorado Springs
The only reason I can see to go narrower is to be able to put the skiis back in the wider position, this would help to keep the spindles away from hitting stuff. I personally would like to see some rounded edge spindles.
 

mountainhorse

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Dec 12, 2005
18,606
11,814
113
West Coast
www.laketahoeconcours.com
The PRO RMK chassis is the first that could actually utilize the advantages of the narrower stance because of the narrower body..

I had a set of 38's on a Dragon and found that it "paneled out" too much on counter-steer and sidehill moves... On the PRO... NOT at all!!

Timbersled offers a 38" wide set that is wicked on a boondocking PRO RMK.

The sled goes where you want with less effort with a narrow stance but does give up a little stability in certain situations.

It is less stable than a wider set... heck an Assault is more stable than a RMK...
Huckers and hill climbers will not want to go narrower... but boondockers and general riders, IMO, will.

With a 38" front end... The PRO Chassis RMKs maneuver in the tight stuff like no other and still give a VERY useable ride on trail.

 
Last edited:

Snodawg

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,989
1,131
113
Selah, WA
I think it would be awesome. Anything to makr it more like my dirt bike would be cool. Like I've been saying, the Pro is the closest thing on two skis to a bike. This would just be another step closer. Frankly, that's kind of what I see as the next step in the evolution of mountain sleds. The manufacturers (especially Polaris) are changing the way we ride in the mountains and where we go. What are we gonna do when we don't have any more groomed trails (don't laugh, WA is thinking about it), we will spend even more time off trail. Trails will be a thing of the past. :gossip:
 

Sheetmetalfab

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 5, 2010
7,904
6,647
113
……..
Assault shocks

I have a Narrower feeling sled with rmk arms and assault shocks more forgiving tipping point. No swaybar set fairly stiff. Works for me
 
G

gman086

Well-known member
Feb 5, 2008
1,347
572
113
Portland, OR
Having come from the Doo camp, the narrow A-Arms have more of a benefit to BRP's sleds because of their 16 wide tracks. Actually they're not even necessary for those sleds if you do the G Man track mod (cut the outer 1/2" off of the paddles to get the agility of a 15 wide with the float of 16 wide; same as what Camoplast is doing with the C-Xtreme now). Going narrow on a Pro is hilare to me.

Have FUN!

G MAN
 

IQ?

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 28, 2007
339
159
43
49
Vilhelmina,Sweden
www.facebook.com
I have Z-Broz 38.5" on my pro and the sled is much easier too ride than with
stock 39"...Even thou the measured diff. is only 1/2-13mm.
I would buy whoever builds a more narrow alternative.
I rode a summit with the newest narrow and it was much better than earlier too
Ed
 

glassman

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 12, 2003
622
424
63
Hinton, Alberta
I almost strictly boondock and love the predictability of the RMK. The trails in suck as the skis want to lift on the corners already. The machine comes over very easy as it is, so I personally cant see any benefit to spending money on a mod like this. I can appreciate the weight savings, but that is about it.
 
Premium Features