Conquer 280 reviews
- Thread starter damx
- Start date
So you like the 3"? I haven't rode mine yet
Love mine!
Easy there Spanky.
Let me point out..
The OP asked about reviews of the Conquer. Your review is based on a track you have never ridden or seen but what you heard from a mystery man. I don't care who your mystery man is because it won't make any difference to his opinion. I would be basing my decision on somebody that can give us some real world personal experience. Heres my INTIAL and I say initial because I'm 2 rides in and still early in the season. I took a chance on this track because I liked what I heard. MY impression of
the Conquer 280 174 3.0 compared to what I had last year 174 X3. My first impression was that the Conquer doesn't trench like the X3. Also its lighter so less rotating mass. On a 174 this is a good thing, feels like I can change direction with less effort. Side hilling it feels a little calmer than the X3. Does it bite and pull the nose like the X3 definitely not. There claim about it being 15% easier to pull on its side? Not sure how you measure that but I do feel it easier to lay over than the X3. My time on a 2.6 last year was limited to 4-5 days on a 155 so not a fair comparison. In saying that the 155 2.6 was a ton of fun and worked real well. In conclusion. In a 174 I feel I made a good choice. If I was riding a 163 it might a different track and different again in a 155. So to say the Conquer is a yes or no? I like it, time will tell if I love it or hate it. Oh yea I don't know if my Moms hairdresser rides. Never asked BRO....
Last edited:
Thanks for your review, Sparky. That's actually how I expected the reviews to go when this track first came out. I've been excited to hear about them. I want to compare my 156" X3.
The two guys that took their tracks back off are people that I do know personally (though I haven't spoken to myself), so it's not like I'm hearing a story from a friend of a friend.
How bout I call them and get it right from the horse's mouth?
Last edited:
Yep! put 1100 miles on my 3" last year. Tried the 2.6 this year and after 2 rides want to go back to the 3". Also gearing down my 17 to match the factory gearing with the 3" and chain case. Eric
I here you. In a 155ish length if you want big bite to lift the nose at will, the Conquer is probably not the track of choice. In 174 length more tame and makes a 174 feel smaller over the 3inch thats what i was looking for. I want flotation and less trenching.The less rotating mass was a big part of my decision. I think we will agree its a personal choice based on riding style and terrain. I run a Turbo and having big power and a track that really bites is not always the best combo unless you are strictly hill shooting.
T
All 163 Axys with 6psi of boost.
Snow, that is a crap shoot, some is really dry, some a little heavier but all of it had no bottom. Going between 2 different sleds at a time.
T
Usually pretty dry fluffy snow. Not dry like Colorado dry though.
T
I should of told everyone these comparisons are all with a turbo sled.
Running on my stage 2 sled I preferred the 3 inch track.
Running on my stage 2 sled I preferred the 3 inch track.
Damn it! I got a deal on a snow check 17' 2.6 so I sold my 16' snow check 3.0 that I absolutely loved. First ride is tomorrow and I know I am going to miss the lower geared 3".
I did the exact same thing. Wishing I had my 16 back. So far my 16 ran better too, but I'm not fully out of break in yet on the 17. Eric
Z
Why did you sold your 16 sled that you loved and bought new one that you already know you don't like :face-icon-small-dis??
My concern with the 3.5 pitch is in spring time riding with the heavier snow.
M
I'm looking to upgrade my track. The conqueror 280 has been out a few years now. What is everyone's opinion on it? Thanks in advance!
Pro:
Side hill engagement takes much less rider input.
Holding a side hill, the sled didn’t wash out as often with early season low snow conditions.
Riding in Sicamous and Revelstoke I subjected this track to the steepest technical riding I’ve ever ridden and it flat out performed.
Cons:
When you go straight down a hill the stopping power definitely lacks. I typically don’t get straight down any hills so it hasn’t been a big issue for me.
If there is over 3’ of fresh snow it doesn’t have as much forward propulsion. Spends a lot more time trenching looking for a base to hook up in. The catch to this con though is I have a 156” so by design the 163” would do better in that snow conditions.
Having Avid extroverts definitely helps on the durability as well. Another thing I noticed is the track is clipped on the paddle window which is a plus.
Currently over 1k miles on this track and it's very soft now compared to when it was brand new. There is definitely a break in time period.
Side hill engagement takes much less rider input.
Holding a side hill, the sled didn’t wash out as often with early season low snow conditions.
Riding in Sicamous and Revelstoke I subjected this track to the steepest technical riding I’ve ever ridden and it flat out performed.
Cons:
When you go straight down a hill the stopping power definitely lacks. I typically don’t get straight down any hills so it hasn’t been a big issue for me.
If there is over 3’ of fresh snow it doesn’t have as much forward propulsion. Spends a lot more time trenching looking for a base to hook up in. The catch to this con though is I have a 156” so by design the 163” would do better in that snow conditions.
Having Avid extroverts definitely helps on the durability as well. Another thing I noticed is the track is clipped on the paddle window which is a plus.
Currently over 1k miles on this track and it's very soft now compared to when it was brand new. There is definitely a break in time period.
