S
Im wondering if a 144" with a fast track speed would climb farther, not faster than a slow speed longer track? Lets see your experience?
how to get up the hill quicker? More track speed or longer track?
- Thread starter summersucks
- Start date
A
Depends on the snow conditions on a given day. I have an 01 800 with a 1.5" competition track 144, it runs with or outruns alot of bigger cc longer track sleds when the snows stiff. I've found that a deep lug 2.5" inch track in mid-length (151) is a great track for all conditions. I enjoy climbing fast and where I ride we usually have stiff snow. Extremely long tracks (162 and longer) on 800cc sleds will get you there, but not quite as quickly. It takes a little more motor than your standard 800 to spin a 162 quickly. The 151" will occasionaly climb farther with more speed but needs heavy snow to get the job done.
Last edited:
T
My 144 07 phazer(500) ripped some pretty big pulls that 2 700 02rmk 136 couldn't do in 3 attempts. Not sure if it is the four strokes higher rpm or the longer track??? Was not for the horsey power. my 2 cents
depends on the snow, hero snow the short track will have no problems. deep pow short track will be burried where the long track will keep on rippin it up!!! where we ride the 162 is the way to go, track speed will only get you so far. when you need floatation, length is the only way to go. if your not into the deep pow, the shorter the better!!!
S
setup is huge. I have a 141 sled with 150ish HP and it will out climb many of our longer sleds. I can hold much higher track speed and I ride it like it needs to be ridden. one day in the super deep I was burrying a newly bought (poorly setup) king cat and yet doing pretty well on my short sled. my biggest problem with the shorter tracks are when the hill get s to the "oh my this is steep" angle. longer sled is more stable.....by a wee bit. my 141 sitting next to the 162 is only about 10" of difference on the ground, but its a big 10" on a steep pull.
Well, I was on a 600 rmk with a 2" 144 last week with 45-51 mph track speed.
The Dragon 700 had 2.4" 155 and he was getting 45-51 mph track speed.
The Dragon 800 had a 2.4" 163. He was getting 45-51 mph.
We tested on this same hill for about an hour.
All of us were making new tracks on the same exact hill.
SOFT powder. We couldn't climb very high at all on the north aspects. The south slopes were a different story.
I was getting beat by the 700 155 by two or 3 lengths before turnout.
The 700 155 was getting beat by the 800 163 by 3 or 4 lengths.
The Dragon 700 had 2.4" 155 and he was getting 45-51 mph track speed.
The Dragon 800 had a 2.4" 163. He was getting 45-51 mph.
We tested on this same hill for about an hour.
All of us were making new tracks on the same exact hill.
SOFT powder. We couldn't climb very high at all on the north aspects. The south slopes were a different story.
I was getting beat by the 700 155 by two or 3 lengths before turnout.
The 700 155 was getting beat by the 800 163 by 3 or 4 lengths.
S
turbo,....
but then again i can out climb my buds zl with my sled. but i have have 15 inchs of more track
but then again i can out climb my buds zl with my sled. but i have have 15 inchs of more track
and the backrest and extra seat foam equalize the chassis balance / hp / torque ratio which keeps him from trenching as bad.
I would say if you are talking the usual 1-2' of powder on an ok base a longer track would be better. Shorter track might be it half way, but when you start losing forward momentum while keeping good track speed you will eventually dig deeper and deeper. Long track however, might be slower but not loose flotation as fast, and if the sled keeps consistent track speed it will keep climbing since it sits up on the snow better. my .02
07
N
10 yrs ago we used to climb places with our "long track" 141's and 60-70 mph track speed on mod T-cats making 180-200 HP that some new 163's can't go today. But that doesn't mean anything other than we used power to create momentum to get to the top. From a dead standstill at the very bottom of the same slope today, our old sleds might get 2/3's of the way up to where the new ones would highmark.
Way to many variables on the table to discuss this. Snow type, hill angle, sled years, track types, approach angles, gearing, power to weight, ground pressure, etc. Hard snow (even ice), a 121 with studs will kick the crap out of your 163 paddle track. In powder on a 55 degree slope for 400 ft, a shorter track could get farther if it simply could get moderate traction and maintain momentum long enough, since the longer track would simply be spinning the snow out the back end trying to force its way up a hill that steep, it would have nothing to do with floatation in that scenario and everything to do with momentum. On a shallower slope,s ay like 20 degrees, but longer, if the long track could get up on the snow and just float along, it would likely get farther than the short track since the short track would run out of momentum faster.
What are you comparing your 144 to? If you are comparing to a 163, no, but a 146, you wouldn't be far behind. The approach angle on a newer 146 sled though would be where you would be at a disadvantage.
Way to many variables on the table to discuss this. Snow type, hill angle, sled years, track types, approach angles, gearing, power to weight, ground pressure, etc. Hard snow (even ice), a 121 with studs will kick the crap out of your 163 paddle track. In powder on a 55 degree slope for 400 ft, a shorter track could get farther if it simply could get moderate traction and maintain momentum long enough, since the longer track would simply be spinning the snow out the back end trying to force its way up a hill that steep, it would have nothing to do with floatation in that scenario and everything to do with momentum. On a shallower slope,s ay like 20 degrees, but longer, if the long track could get up on the snow and just float along, it would likely get farther than the short track since the short track would run out of momentum faster.
What are you comparing your 144 to? If you are comparing to a 163, no, but a 146, you wouldn't be far behind. The approach angle on a newer 146 sled though would be where you would be at a disadvantage.
G
go high fast
Guest
track speed stays high if you can get your clutches shifted out as much as possible and remain that way throughout the entire hillclimb. For a given snow condition that requires the correct balance between HP and gearing.
not enough HP then secondary clutch will backshift to compensate and reduce track speed so raise the gear ratio. Lots of HP and the lower gear ratio will work great.
not enough HP then secondary clutch will backshift to compensate and reduce track speed so raise the gear ratio. Lots of HP and the lower gear ratio will work great.
bring on your short tracks
heres some pow pics, bring on the short tracks, you won't get any pics like this because your sled will be buried under the snow. in the pow i don't care if you have twice the hp in the DEEP length is KING!!! this day the pow was chest deep all day when you stepped of your sled. pinned the entire day, a 144 wouldn't have been able to take off let alone keep plowing all day...
heres some pow pics, bring on the short tracks, you won't get any pics like this because your sled will be buried under the snow. in the pow i don't care if you have twice the hp in the DEEP length is KING!!! this day the pow was chest deep all day when you stepped of your sled. pinned the entire day, a 144 wouldn't have been able to take off let alone keep plowing all day...
Last edited:
Y
Dont forget about weight,, thats why the XPs are doing so well climbing with only 45 mph or so track speed regardless of length:face-icon-small-win
C
310 hp Apex and a 174 track will do the job
K
I look at this issue like this, when the snow is setup, firm, "hero snow", whatever, anybody goes anywhere for the most part. When it's deep and light, the longer track sleds will almost always get stuck less and go higher. OF course if you're not set up right, primarily clutching, you aren't going anywhere, but we're talking track length here.
Years ago all we talked about was track speed, that was before we got true "long tracks". And before we seen what they can do.
This last year myself and some others were in this same conversation and I heard a comment that made perfect sense and it was like this:
"You will never here John Force give a post race interview making the comment "If I just would have had a little more tire spin, i would of won the race". Nope wou will never here that. Think about it.
Years ago all we talked about was track speed, that was before we got true "long tracks". And before we seen what they can do.
This last year myself and some others were in this same conversation and I heard a comment that made perfect sense and it was like this:
"You will never here John Force give a post race interview making the comment "If I just would have had a little more tire spin, i would of won the race". Nope wou will never here that. Think about it.
N
Rode 6 feet of bottomless powder this year and had a buddy with the 144, he did get stuck, maybe slightly more than (or just as much) as the rest of us with longer tracks, but its not like we left him sitting at the truck......
144 vs 162 = 9" more track on the ground.
B
I think the other thing no one is really talking about is how long the paddles are on it. This plays huge into it when you get the super deep stuff, track speed is great but when it gets real deep you just need the track length to get up stuff. Had a great example of this on a ride this winter. About 14 of us were riding in a new area to us. Foggie , bad vis and they waved some people down in to a bowl that was pretty steep getting out of . First sled down 02 poo 800 with a 144 that was well setup and a couple dragons M1 and my buddies M7 all dropped down in. M7 bone stock with a 153 ripped out, dragons same thing, that 02 with the shorter track and shorter paddles took prob 8 to 10 tries at that hill and couldnt get out. Ended up sticking it 40 feet down and we pulled it up with 14 guys and a rope. And trust me it wasn't the riders fault. I think with all things being equal just the length diff. you prob wont loose a ton of performance but you would have to ride it diff. Carry more speed ect. every where you go. I don't think the shorter track can do the same creep through the trees in the deep snow as the longer ones because it needs to carry more speed everywhere.
A
I really think snow conditions make a big difference. Look at the guys racing hillclimb.....those hills are plenty steep and they run 144-155" tracks. But then again, snow conditions are different. I have run 144, 151, 159 and 162. With bigger horsepower sleds I have found a 159 cut down to 2.25" works real well(Polaris track). However, next year I am going with a 156x2.5". Reason being, our snow out here is not your typical dry powder.....and when you do get that, it sets up over night. I really think track speed is important. Perfect example is we have 2 guys in our group with race motor 800 Revs running 144" tracks. These guys climb any and everything. Granted they are great riders, but they go everywhere. There is the 1 or 2 days a year that we actually make it out when there is 3-4ft of fresh....those days they don't do quite as well, but 99% of the time they are right there. So with that theory in mind, I am going a little shorter this year. Granted 155/156 is not short, but I feel with a sled that has less than 200hp, it should be fine. Once you get over that 200hp mark I really think the longer track is needed, if for no other reason than to keep the front end down and not come over on you as easy. Now I do realize the new sleds handle better than they use to with longer tracks, and I do realize there are different compound tracks, and track clearance issues that really change things. But I know for a fact, that in California, with our heavier snow, a stiffer track, with a 2.25" lug height does very well. I noticed this first hand when I cut my 2.4" down. Not only did it seem a bit faster, but it did much better in the snow we have 90% of the time, and I can't say I noticed much difference in the powder days. FYI
K
Ok, I thought about it.
I think on a sled there is a point between sled HP, weight, and track length "traction" differences where a shorter lighter sled would outperform a heavier longer tracked sled assuming equal power and lug height/design... EVEN IN DEEP POW.
When my pa and I were running piped T-cats (set up well) We rode a lot with a friend on a poo 144 800 piped (set up well) and pretty darn light.
In the deep pow, that thing flat out performed and could put the hurt on our much more powerful T-cats mine being a 144 and pa's being 136... Depending on hill and conditions... More set up situations we could easily put the hurt on him.
Every dog has its day... Seen similar results riding new iron... My (stock) 1000 has had plenty of good days going up against new stock 800s, but in different conditions has had a hard time keeping those same 800s at bay.
Too many variables, IMO, lightweight makes a HUGE difference.
D
9 x 15 = 135 sq inches more track on the ground, and 3 more rows of paddles.
-DallanC
