• 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.

17 174 Axys is 442 lbs...

A

AMAX

Well-known member
Dec 22, 2014
96
83
18
I didn't really have a point when listing the surface area of the tracks. Just noticing that the the Poo 174 and the Doo 165 are comparable weights with comparable track areas. Pretty cool whats available these days.
 

Ace Freely

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jul 6, 2002
2,981
1,147
113
Wenatchee, WA
So how much of that track is in the snow when the sled is tipped up on a 60 degree slope?

Might be 1/2 of the bottom only depending on how set up the snow is and the that could:

AXYS 2610/2=1305 and there is track around drivers and rear wheel that does not touch the snow so maybe another 10% less
1305 x .9=1174.5 and 1/2 that due to being on one ski (sidehill)
1174.5/2=587.25 square inches on the snow.

Doo: 2640/2=1320 and there is track around drivers and rear wheel that does not touch the snow so maybe another 10% less
1320 x .9=1188 and 1/2 that due to being on one ski (sidehill)
1188/2=594 square inches on the snow.

Could be as little as 6.75 sq. inches different But the Doo is pushing more snow due to its wider path.

Not that my math is accurate, its more of an example of how these numbers can be manipulated.

If your point is that the Doo will have more traction then the 154 Doo should be able to out-climb a 163 AXYS. Good luck on that happening.


...I don't understand your math, OR your point...

...my thought to this thread is simple; the longest tracked sled that Polaris is offering is only a lb difference than longest track sled that Doo is offering...

...spin that HOWEVER you like, but just my observation.

Ace
 

turboless terry

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jan 15, 2008
5,565
6,765
113
Big Timber, MT
The 165 will be lighter when riding it than the poo 174. As far as square footage of the tracks. It is meaningless. Extra length will get you farther than extra width. How the hillclimb shakes out will depend on how the 3.5 pitch works and how much drag and trenching the new chassis got rid of.if comparing t3 174 to axys 174 the axys would mop the floor. My bet is the new doo is awesome. When laying them on their side in the trees the doo is still going to drag in the snow because they are still quite a bit wider,there, than the axys but they will be way better than they were.
 

Excalibur

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jan 28, 2011
444
188
43
Lewiston, ID
Currently Longest Track - Ski Doo & Polaris

2017 Summit X 174
Dry Weight 467 LB

2017 PRO RMK 174
Dry Weight 442 LB

By the way I do love my "short track" 155 Axys, but I think the GEN4 Ski Doo and 850Etec are going to work great! Each sled will have its area to shine, maybe one will "spank" the other. Not sure if I care. I will leave the spankings up to Snowmobiler and Grandma:face-icon-small-win I am excited to see the manufactures continue to give us such great choices for the backcountry:face-icon-small-coo
 
S

Slick

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,192
1,027
113
Currently Longest Track - Ski Doo & Polaris

2017 Summit X 174
Dry Weight 467 LB

2017 PRO RMK 174
Dry Weight 442 LB

By the way I do love my "short track" 155 Axys, but I think the GEN4 Ski Doo and 850Etec are going to work great! Each sled will have its area to shine, maybe one will "spank" the other. Not sure if I care. I will leave the spankings up to Snowmobiler and Grandma:face-icon-small-win I am excited to see the manufactures continue to give us such great choices for the backcountry:face-icon-small-coo

Interesting you were able to find the weight of a 17 Doo 174.
 
S
Nov 2, 2009
233
183
43
Hugo, MN
...I don't understand your math, OR your point...

...my thought to this thread is simple; the longest tracked sled that Polaris is offering is only a lb difference than longest track sled that Doo is offering...

...spin that HOWEVER you like, but just my observation.

Ace

Ace

1 why is it Polaris fault doo made there 165 as long as a axys 174 so they should be penalized??? Makes zero sense other than spinning into the doo favor.

2 Is it fair that then 2016 sleds weight Polaris should compare there 163 to the doo t3 174 for weights?? I dont think you would like that comparison. Polaris would be 50+ lbs lighter

This is a no spin post! No Poo or Doo spin on the facts.

want to compare weights you compare most comparable length sled same size track and then see the difference.
I'm not picking sides I'm just stating how you weigh a sled fair. and in this case I said it before. The doo made strides in the right direction in many ways but have not gotten within 20lb of the axys yet.
 
S
Nov 2, 2009
233
183
43
Hugo, MN
I for one don't want a 174 ever. I enjoy tight technical tree riding so my choice for sled length is the 155 or 156.
Driving 174's in the trees are like driving a pickup truck on a race care course.
Different strokes for different folks. If your a big hill climber 174 might be for you imo if technical 155-156 is my choice.
 

rulonjj

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 15, 2008
1,730
1,088
113
capitol town, WY
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403250

both bone stock

163 axys 3"= 532lbs wet

174 t3 xm= 551lbs wet.

now factor in the weight loss doo claims plus the extra power for the 850 g4. it will actually be really close in weight but stock for stock will be upwards of 15-20hp

That's what I've been saying in another thread and got a lot of sh!t over it. No one thinks wet weights matter. :face-icon-small-dis


With the poo 174 weighing in at 442 dry that's 16 lbs heavier than the 163 x 3. That would put wet weights only 2 lbs apart on the Xm 174 and the poo 174. The G4 would be way lighter at that point.
 
Last edited:
G

Gobig510

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2010
137
51
28
36
Colorado
I for one don't want a 174 ever. I enjoy tight technical tree riding so my choice for sled length is the 155 or 156.
Driving 174's in the trees are like driving a pickup truck on a race care course.
Different strokes for different folks. If your a big hill climber 174 might be for you imo if technical 155-156 is my choice.

Are you saying this after riding both side-by-side, or is this what you assume to be true? I ask because i rented an xm 174 this season and thought it was extremely nimble in the trees. Of course I am coming from primarily riding an xp, but I didn't feel like it was a "pickup truck" by any means. I put it to the test too, quite a few steep off cambers, lots of carving 180 degrees around trees, climbing up river valleys. I didn't try an xm 154 the same day, but I didn't feel like I wanted the 174 to be more nimble. The only times I got stuck was going straight up some super steep heavily treed areas where I just ran out of power/traction, had nothing to do with not being able to hold the line I was looking for. Maybe I would have been less tired at the end of the day on a 154? But then again, maybe I would have had to dig out more on a 154 and been more fatigued? Would be interesting to hear if you ran both track lengths, in the same model, on the same day.
 

Timbre

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 1, 2008
2,812
2,504
113
Southwestern Idaho
That's what I've been saying in another thread and got a lot of sh!t over it. No one thinks wet weights matter.

You guys and your "wet weight" argument LOL

Sounds kinda like the yammi video where they packed the skid and sled full of snow and tried to claim there wasn't much difference between them in weight. How did that "spin of the truth" work out for them? NO ONE believed them! I doubt this attempt will gain much traction either. But there is always a few who will drink the doolaid . . . LMAO!! :)

If you have a heavier sled. . .its ok. Just add more power to overcome it. . . that's what yammi had to do :)
 
C
Apr 9, 2014
7
5
3
32
You guys and your "wet weight" argument LOL

Sounds kinda like the yammi video where they packed the skid and sled full of snow and tried to claim there wasn't much difference between them in weight. How did that "spin of the truth" work out for them? NO ONE believed them! I doubt this attempt will gain much traction either. But there is always a few who will drink the doolaid . . . LMAO!! :)

If you have a heavier sled. . .its ok. Just add more power to overcome it. . . that's what yammi had to do :)

So your telling me you can ride your sled with no Oil/Gas/coolant? Man, i need to get what your riding....

Maybe i will just have to fill the new REV G4 "saddlebags" with a little magic.
 

rulonjj

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 15, 2008
1,730
1,088
113
capitol town, WY
You guys and your "wet weight" argument LOL

Sounds kinda like the yammi video where they packed the skid and sled full of snow and tried to claim there wasn't much difference between them in weight. How did that "spin of the truth" work out for them? NO ONE believed them! I doubt this attempt will gain much traction either. But there is always a few who will drink the doolaid . . . LMAO!! :)

If you have a heavier sled. . .its ok. Just add more power to overcome it. . . that's what yammi had to do :)



That's the difference between the yami and the new Doo. One is actually quite light. Is it really that hard for you diehard poo guys to accept that Doo is getting their weight close to or even lower than the poo rtr?

It's ok. Just admit it. We won't tell your buddies that you accepted the truth. But once you do it will be easier from there on out.
 
Last edited:
Premium Features