Why is the 156 3" track 7lbs heavier than than the 162?

WaBackcountry · Aug 31, 2012

I think this must be a mistake unless it is a change in ply or duro? These numbers are right off Tracks USA site?

Model 9225 16 156 3 68 3.0

Model 9219 16 162 3 61 3.0

156 weighs 68 lbs and 162 weighs 61 lbs? Doesn't make sense??

Something must be haywire?

Since we are talking about it. Has anyone fit a 156 on stock 153 proclimb rails with 7 tooth drivers? I know it can be done with out the driver change but it is close to running out of adjustment when tightening track. I am afraid with the 7 tooth drivers you won't be able to properly tighten track???

HOOCH256 · Aug 31, 2012

If your running out of room with the stock drivers with a 3" longer track you will def not have the room for it with 7T IMHO also keep in mind track stretch as well! Just man up and buy some ice age rails!!!

Sent from my super duper sweet iPhone using Tapatalk when I should be doing something productive!

Turbo11T · Aug 31, 2012

I have a 156 2.5 on my sled. I would surely run smaller drivers with a 3". Also for note with the 156 on stock drivers I have about an inch of adjustment left in the suspension. This is with a used track so it is stretched already. If you do the math. The 7t is 1.040" smaller in Diameter and about 3" smaller in cir. It likely will not work. Now if you go from the stock rear wheel to a 9" wheel it should be enough to offset the driver and some.

0neoldfart · Aug 31, 2012

WaBackcountry said:
I think this must be a mistake unless it is a change in ply or duro? These numbers are right off Tracks USA site?

Model 9225 16 156 3 68 3.0

Model 9219 16 162 3 61 3.0

156 weighs 68 lbs and 162 weighs 61 lbs? Doesn't make sense??

Something must be haywire?

Since we are talking about it. Has anyone fit a 156 on stock 153 proclimb rails with 7 tooth drivers? I know it can be done with out the driver change but it is close to running out of adjustment when tightening track. I am afraid with the 7 tooth drivers you won't be able to properly tighten track???

To fit track on 153 rails, either use an offset axle w/9" wheels (I used MountainMachines I think), or bite the bullet & have IceAge make a set of 156 rails. Neither way is cheap, but at least the IceAge rails are way stronger then the stockers.

backcountryislife · Aug 31, 2012

To make more room with the stock setup, you can also dremel out additional space at the back of the adjuster, so you can slide it back further. Many of us did that with the 156 CE years ago, for when they stretched a bit (most didn't need it, but it was easier to do at install than pulling things later)

I'd go with the 9" axle... easy to do, easy to change back if you ever want to go to a 153 or sell the sled more stock...

WaBackcountry · Aug 31, 2012

Can anyone verify the weights of these tracks?

byeatts · Aug 31, 2012

WaBackcountry said:
I think this must be a mistake unless it is a change in ply or duro? These numbers are right off Tracks USA site?

Model 9225 16 156 3 68 3.0

Model 9219 16 162 3 61 3.0

156 weighs 68 lbs and 162 weighs 61 lbs? Doesn't make sense??

Something must be haywire?

Since we are talking about it. Has anyone fit a 156 on stock 153 proclimb rails with 7 tooth drivers? I know it can be done with out the driver change but it is close to running out of adjustment when tightening track. I am afraid with the 7 tooth drivers you won't be able to properly tighten track???

The new 162 is a new lighter unproven one ply cord style with thinner paddles and 15 inch wide paddle and the 156 is same design as the 2.5,s which has been proven best lug reliability and is two ply cord with full 16 wide paddles.

ACMtnCat · Aug 31, 2012

The 156 is a fictional track so far..... No one has seen one and will likely not see one till Christmas or maybe later....? Who knows!:face-icon-small-con

I've been watching/hoping for this track for two years now, why it's advertised but still not available???:face-icon-small-dis

byeatts · Aug 31, 2012

ACMtnCat said:
The 156 is a fictional track so far..... No one has seen one and will likely not see one till Christmas or maybe later....? Who knows!:face-icon-small-con

I've been watching/hoping for this track for two years now, why it's advertised but still not available???:face-icon-small-dis

They are already made and shipping out this week to distributors. This came from Camoplast .

LoudHandle · Aug 31, 2012

WaBackcountry said:
I think this must be a mistake unless it is a change in ply or duro? These numbers are right off Tracks USA site?

Model 9225 16 156 3 68 3.0

Model 9219 16 162 3 61 3.0

156 weighs 68 lbs and 162 weighs 61 lbs? Doesn't make sense??

Something must be haywire?

Since we are talking about it. Has anyone fit a 156 on stock 153 proclimb rails with 7 tooth drivers? I know it can be done with out the driver change but it is close to running out of adjustment when tightening track. I am afraid with the 7 tooth drivers you won't be able to properly tighten track???

The rumor in another thread is the #9225 is a double ply where the 9219 is a singe ply. I can not confirm or deny that rumor.

byeatts · Aug 31, 2012

LoudHandle said:
The rumor in another thread is the #9225 is a double ply where the 9219 is a singe ply. I can not confirm or deny that rumor.

Fact, The 9225 is already made . No rumor and its a 2 ply, Same exact lug as the old 2.5. The 9219 is not made yet and scheduled soon and is the new one ply design.

WaBackcountry · Aug 31, 2012

Is weight savings the only advantage to the single ply?

ACMtnCat · Aug 31, 2012

WaBackcountry said:
Is weight savings the only advantage to the single ply?

No. Single ply tracks roll a lot easier, more power to the ground.

byeatts · Aug 31, 2012

ACMtnCat said:
No. Single ply tracks roll a lot easier, more power to the ground.

The interesting part about ply tracks is the finished belt thickness is the same on single and double ply. The extra ply takes up space so there's actually less rubber on two ply which is heavy. Correct the two ply will have a tad more rolling resistance. The additional weight on the 9225 is in a full 16 paddle width and thicker paddles.

WaBackcountry · Aug 31, 2012

Specs show them both as 16" wide.

byeatts · Aug 31, 2012

WaBackcountry said:
Specs show them both as 16" wide.

correct the belt is 16 wide on both. the paddles on the new style are only 15 wide

Search

Why is the 156 3" track 7lbs heavier than than the 162?

WaBackcountry

Well-known member

HOOCH256

Well-known member

Turbo11T

Well-known member

0neoldfart

Well-known member

backcountryislife

Well-known member

WaBackcountry

Well-known member

byeatts

Well-known member

ACMtnCat

Well-known member

byeatts

Well-known member

LoudHandle

Well-known member

byeatts

Well-known member

WaBackcountry

Well-known member

ACMtnCat

Well-known member

byeatts

Well-known member

WaBackcountry

Well-known member

byeatts

Well-known member

Similar threads