Will I hate my life if....

dgreet77 · Sep 15, 2013

I buy a 1100t with the 153"? I'm seriously considering picking up one of these bad boys as my new sled but I've always rode 153"s and never really felt comfortable on the 162"s for some reason, they just always felt too long. So I'm just curious as to opinions on if the 153" is just too small for the 4s.

If I do what I'm thinking right now I'd try to pick up a '13 or '14 1100t std, and do the 2.6, vert steering, and stage 1 EVO flash/exhaust/brv/tubes/etc. I'm not wanting a chute killer here, just a reliable all-around sled, and for some reason I want to try a 4s, don't know exactly why, I just do. So will I wish I had the 162 if I do this?

Snowmow · Sep 15, 2013

Have you owned ridden a proclimb??

dgreet77 · Sep 15, 2013

Haven't owned, have ridden just a few times a buddys, I know there will be a learning curve, just thinking if I have to relearn, I should relearn on what I want to ride for a few years.

Sage Crusher · Sep 15, 2013

Overall the shorter will be OK-but in the late December/ January powder day's the longer floats well.. depending on waht you ant to do..
For starters,,, the short version should be just fine- you can always go longer- just backwards to shorter track is a mother..

S/C

Turbo11T · Sep 16, 2013

I have a 153 1100t well actually a 156 now. But i liked it as the 153 and notice very little difference at the 156. Either way I had been riding 162s before the 153 and I don't notice much difference.

dgreet77 · Sep 16, 2013

Cool, I was hoping to hear something like that.

I've always got along great with the 153" Just didn't know how the 4s sleds handled it with the extra torque/weight.

Snowmow · Sep 16, 2013

The chassis is fine.
It's the drive train you have to be worried about.

Sage Crusher · Sep 16, 2013

dgreet77 said:
Cool, I was hoping to hear something like that. I've always got along great with the 153" Just didn't know how the 4s sleds handled it with the extra torque/weight.

The best way is to buy the short one and ride it- (153) then I would toss a leg over a long track one and see if you like what it has to offer.
Dont make the mistake going from 153 to a 156- -- the only performance gains are from the lightness in your wallet from spending the $$$ on the track.. Best advice... Start short and see what will work for your frame.
A 162 takes some riding- but once you on one there is no going back on the deep pow day of December and January- especially in the mountains here where we ride.... no flat lander sled period

S/C

WyoBoy1000 · Sep 17, 2013

I prefer the 153 for the fun factor, but it depends on your skill level. If your equal to your friends go with what they ride. If your better go shorter and you will have a blast.

backcountryislife · Sep 17, 2013

Sage Crusher said:
Dont make the mistake going from 153 to a 156- -- the only performance gains are from the lightness in your wallet from spending the $$$ on the track.

That depends on the track though. If you go to a 3" 156... IMO that will be "more track" than a 162.

Sage Crusher · Sep 17, 2013

backcountryislife said:
That depends on the track though. If you go to a 3" 156... IMO that will be "more track" than a 162.

But not on the ground ( flotation)
compairing 3" to the 2.5 or 3" to 3"

The best jusT might be (since we are changing the rules) is 3" 153.
But I don't ride trees.. so the 162 is my way to go.

S/C

dgreet77 · Sep 17, 2013

WyoBoy1000 said:
I prefer the 153 for the fun factor, but it depends on your skill level. If your equal to your friends go with what they ride. If your better go shorter and you will have a blast.

Most of the guys I ride with ride 153" with an exception or two. And I'd say I'm the middle of the road guy skill-wise.

I don't make too many trips to places that get frequent endless powder days, so thats part of the reason for the lean towards the 153".....most of my riding is the very very southern tip of the Big Horns and I think the 162" this far south is too much.

Snowmow · Sep 17, 2013

dgreet77 said:
Most of the guys I ride with ride 153" with an exception or two. And I'd say I'm the middle of the road guy skill-wise.

I don't make too many trips to places that get frequent endless powder days, so thats part of the reason for the lean towards the 153".....most of my riding is the very very southern tip of the Big Horns and I think the 162" this far south is too much.

Just curious. How far south exactly?

dgreet77 · Sep 17, 2013

Snowmow said:
Just curious. How far south exactly?

Pretty much almost the end of them. If you hit Lost Cabin, you've gone too far. :face-icon-small-hap Ok, not quite that far south but well past where the pavement ends going that direction though.

backcountryislife · Sep 18, 2013

Sage Crusher said:
But not on the ground ( flotation)
compairing 3" to the 2.5 or 3" to 3"

The best jusT might be (since we are changing the rules) is 3" 153.
But I don't ride trees.. so the 162 is my way to go.

S/C

I'd disagree about the perspective... long track works better in the trees where you need to go slower, out in the open track speed is king. I have yet to not make a climb someone on a 162 did, and I was on 141's the last 5 years. Get in the trees though, and it's a different ballgame... I've got to go faster, and be much more on my toes than a 162.

Either way, floatation is a minimal factor in reality. It's not water where you're sinking, so what you need is resistance to digging a hole, which can be accomplished in a few ways, one of which is a longer paddle, another is a longer track. comparing a 156 3" to a 162 3", yeah, the 162 has more, but that wasn't the question.

madmax · Sep 18, 2013

Personally if you ride the mountains I wouldn't ride anything shorter than a 162 on an 1100t, especially if you are putting more power to it. You just can't get enough traction on the 1100t with a 153. Depends how you plan on riding it too.

dgreet77 · Sep 18, 2013

madmax said:
Personally if you ride the mountains I wouldn't ride anything shorter than a 162 on an 1100t, especially if you are putting more power to it. You just can't get enough traction on the 1100t with a 153. Depends how you plan on riding it too.

Not a huge jumper, not a chute killer, not really a super tight tree guy either. So basically whats left after that, is how I plan on riding it. :second:

Snowmow · Sep 18, 2013

dgreet77 said:
Not a huge jumper, not a chute killer, not really a super tight tree guy either. So basically whats left after that, is how I plan on riding it. :second:

Well sir. You a prime candidate for a 1996 zxt 600!

dgreet77 · Sep 18, 2013

Snowmow said:
Well sir. You a prime candidate for a 1996 zxt 600!

Thats probably the truth!! :banplease: :face-icon-small-ton

I guess what I meant by that post was you won't see me in Slednecks, Thunderstruck, etc. I just don't want to give the impression I'm looking to do massively amazing things on this sled, just ride the piss out of it and have some fun doing it. :face-icon-small-hap

Snowmow · Sep 19, 2013

dgreet77 said:
Thats probably the truth!! :banplease: :face-icon-small-ton

I guess what I meant by that post was you won't see me in Slednecks, Thunderstruck, etc. I just don't want to give the impression I'm looking to do massively amazing things on this sled, just ride the piss out of it and have some fun doing it. :face-icon-small-hap

Just givin you a lil crap!
I would go with the 162 man.
The 6" (if that) of over all length gain from a 153-162 doesn't account to much for handling. And for the guys just wanting to have fun, and not trying to cut a line through the trees that a billy goat would be proud of, well, I think the 162 is the best option. The little extra length just distributes your weight over a bigger area. So maybe you could stop and go again somewhere you couldn't on the shorter sled, or maybe you will get stuck just a lil less. Those 2 things equate to more fun at the end of the day. Especially with a sled that has the power to turn a big track. For god sakes don't cut yourself short! (Pun intended). Just go big. Or go zxt 600

Will I hate my life if....

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads