Best track length for me, 155 or 163?

ckspeed · Jul 15, 2008

Okay, not to start another argument thread about track length, but I need some sound advice from those with more experience than I.

I’m looking into “new” sleds and I’m debating on a 155 or 163, both 15 wide (Polaris 07-08). I mainly boondock in the Snowies, a little hill-climbing but nothing wild by any means as I’m not that fond of heights and ghostriding

Mainly backcountry pokin’ around and in the tight n twisty.

I’m 6’4” and 260-270ish w/gear. I also carry a couple extra gallons of fuel, bunje, tunnel bag w/rope, gps, few tools, kitchen sink, etc. on each outing.

This year I feel a 163 would have been good, but what about in lesser snow years?

What do you think about track length and the tight turning / slow speed associated with boondocking. Sidehill ability is very important too.

Advice?

Thanks in advance.

pernikm · Jul 15, 2008

You're a big guy, go 163. You need the floatation!

ckspeed · Jul 15, 2008

Forgot to mention, I'm riding a 700 w/141x2 currently. I get along pretty good with it and manage to stay out of too much trouble. I just can't quite go where my riding buddies w/ 151's and 154's go. I think I may be keeping them from pushing on at times.

I've certainly learned that throttle and momemtum are my friends.:face-icon-small-sho

mezz250x · Jul 15, 2008

IMO if your not climbing all the time a 155 is enough to do what you need i think. Thats still alota track being they are 2.4" lugs

AKSNOWRIDER · Jul 15, 2008

I ride a 163.. I go 5-7, 155 pds...go 163.. you are a big guy already and as easy as the dragons flip around you wont have any problems..also if you are holding your buddies back when they do pushon to bigger and better terrain the 155 might hold you back again....besides..the diference is only 4 inches on the snow...

theultrarider · Jul 15, 2008

Another vote for the 163...I'm 6'1" and 250 in street clothes. I ride a 159 now and had a 151 before that. If I were to chose between the two (155-163) I would certianly chose the 163. The ONLY time I think about a shorter track is when I start jumping with the kids. That isn't often any more. I don't how tight the trees get, I will take the longer track boondocking any day over the shorter tracks, it is sooo much more forgiving when slowing down when things get tight steep or deep.

MARCUSO · Jul 15, 2008

I am 270, 6 feet tall.

I went from a 151 summit to a 162 rev. I found that the 151 could get me where I wanted to go, but the 162 gets me into trouble at times...

When the snow is waist deep, I smile from ear to ear with a 162, but in the spring. it is a chore to weave and bob through the trees. I wish I could have 2 sleds, one for deeeeep pow and one for playin.

I have a freind who went from a 151 to a 159 too early, and he lost all his confidence. He is more of a pu$$y when it comes to exploring.

I think the optimum track for all around, would be a 155 with the tallest lug. No foolin around, just some performance and agility.

Tabasco · Jul 16, 2008

I go 5-11 250lbs.

I went from a 136 X 15 X 2.......in 2005....needed a little more so
I went to a 151 X 15 X 2.....in 2006....needed a little more so
I went to a 159 X 16 X 2.3...after approx 5 rides in 2007..needed a little more so
I went to a 162 X 16 X 2.5.....to finish 2007-2008.

I don't think you will have a prob heeling over a 162 after you ride it a few times and get used to it......and what is the probibality of you saying I wish I had a smaller track vs. saying I wish I had a longer track.......there might be times you would say the smaller but I bet it wouldn't be as many times the other way if it were a 153.....IMHO.

Good luck!!

T

ckspeed · Jul 16, 2008

MARCUSO said:
I went from a 151 summit to a 162 rev. I found that the 151 could get me where I wanted to go, but the 162 gets me into trouble at times...

I have a freind who went from a 151 to a 159 too early, and he lost all his confidence. He is more of a pu$$y when it comes to exploring.

Care to explain? Trouble, like places you shouldn't or couldn't have gone w/a smaller track? With regards to your friend, I figured the longer track would inspire more confidence. Was it a different chassis that handled different?

I'm glad to see there's some big guys out there that like to ride too! Maybe it doesn't matter that much, but I can't help but think me and my gear need more track on the ground than someone who's 5-6 and 130.

I really like the idea of the 163, but I'm afraid last seasons huge snow is going to make me think I need it when maybe I don't and then I'll regret it later on in the "normal" snow years.

Do you have to lean it over or throw your weight around more w/longer sleds? Everyone says my GenII is the worst handling sled out there, it can't be worse than that can it?

Barnes · Jul 16, 2008

I have a couple of 07 155's and they feal like a 136 gen II when riding them. The new raw IQ chasis handles so good that I don't think a 163 would seem long at all.

AZ800 · Jul 16, 2008

ckspeed said:
Do you have to lean it over or throw your weight around more w/longer sleds? Everyone says my GenII is the worst handling sled out there, it can't be worse than that can it?

That's funny, I actually prefer my Gen II to the M7 in the powder. The M7 does carve nicely, but my RMK, 2" riser and no sway bar seems to carve a bit easier/better than the M7. On the trail, different story, the RMK is like driving an old Jeep on a washboard road compared to the M.

Haven't had the M1K, 162 in powder yet, but it seemed to pull a ski pretty easily and carve even in hardpack (where you only dig in a few inches). It certainly wasn't any harder to turn on the trail than a 151-153 sled either.

yardfarmer · Jul 16, 2008

I am 5' 10" 225 with gear ride a 159 800, use to have a 144 and a 136 before that. I will tell you I like the longer track, floats much better and doesn't really handle much differently.

My vote 163

Blk88GT · Jul 16, 2008

I vote 163. I'm 5'9 and 200lbs, I didn't have any issues throwing the 162 around on my first trip out west.

Chubbydog · Jul 16, 2008

A guy your size there's no question. Get the 163" for sure. My brother n law who's 6'7 270lbs rides a 151, and everytime he gets on my 163" the only thing he says when he gets back, is I hate all you guys on the longer tracks. It makes it much easier in the deep stuff. Anybody who says it's hard to side hill with a track that long doesn't know how to ride. I went from a 136" to a 151" to a 159" and now a 163", and wouldn't ever go shorter. A longer track gives me more confidence, because you know you can get out of something a lot easier. You can also go a little slower through the trees if you want to without getting stuck.

Skidoox600 · Jul 16, 2008

Ive ridden both a 163 and 155 in a 07 Dragons chassis... Im 6'2" 170 without gear... They do turn amazing no matter what, but i did feel a little longer with the 163. I rode in some over windshield deep snow with the 155 it was pure fluff and it did amazing... I rode a 155 and 163 in the super tight trees, and i mean tight, where i had to cut them down to get thur them, and the 155 kicked the 163's *** in that for sure. I would go 155 for ur riding style.. I rode a 155 more about 1500 miles and about 500 on a 163. 155 is my way of going.

Ollie · Jul 16, 2008

I am 5' 14", 260lbs (fully loaded and riding).
I ride the 08 700 RMK 155. I mostly ride the snowies.
Little bit of climbing but mostly tree running. The 155 works great.
I wouldn't go with the 163. I found that the 155 pushed a little in spring time riding and couldn't imagine riding spring time with a 163.

My philosophy is "if my ski's fit, it's a trail".

ckspeed · Jul 16, 2008

Ollie said:
I am 5' 14", ......

Heh Heh, what?? Struck me funny for some reason...
How late in the spring Ollie? Like when it's mashy taters? Do you think a ski change would help?

Geez, I get so many that say go big BIG, and then some that say no way would they go to a 160's. Can't someone just make an extendo track or something to do it all?

155's are definately more plentiful, and I certainly realize I can use the floatation of a 163, but I'm afraid of the $8-9k mistake and wish I had the 155, or 163. If I could only afford both!

Keep the opinions coming guys, especially you full size guys :beer;, but I value anyones educated opinion. Thanks

Ex-Member · Jul 16, 2008

I haven't ridden too many machines, but I've got 151" under my sled and it seems to do well.

6', 170lb naked, if it matters...

theultrarider · Jul 16, 2008

Most all sleds are a comprimise since most of us can't afford multiple sleds for each type of riding that we do. This is where you have to be very honest with yourself. Just what is it that you do most, and want your sled to be best at. My 130lb boy has chosen to stick with 121's with a 2'' paddle since he loves big air. There are days that he can't even get up to jump off cornices and has to settle for watching dad cuz I can get up there with my 159 piped 800!!! Most days, it works out well for him, others he does ALOT of digging. Tried going 136 on it, and he got around much much better, but could not throw it around in the air as well, so he went back to the 121. And when it really dumps alot of snow, He manages to talk mom into staying home and then he takes her piped 800 151 for the day and spanks me! Myself, I just keep going longer and longer as I get older. Just like the big motor, the big track lets us fat old guys slow down in the gnarly stuff and then power out the other side. They climb so much better, but with that you must use better judgment in just what you want to come back down! We tree ride alot and push our way through anything that we can. I rarely regret the 159. for myself, the only down side of the freight trains is the room they take up on/in the trailer, and huge air jumps. All else is good. I can spin 360's inside what most of the kids do on their 121's and they just can't understand that. It rides great. And I rarely stick it unless I really screw up! My next sled will be a 163. Just be honest with yourself when you ask, what do I really want it to do best.

Ollie · Jul 16, 2008

ckspeed said:
Heh Heh, what?? Struck me funny for some reason...
How late in the spring Ollie? Like when it's mashy taters? Do you think a ski change would help?

Geez, I get so many that say go big BIG, and then some that say no way would they go to a 160's. Can't someone just make an extendo track or something to do it all?

155's are definately more plentiful, and I certainly realize I can use the floatation of a 163, but I'm afraid of the $8-9k mistake and wish I had the 155, or 163. If I could only afford both!

Keep the opinions coming guys, especially you full size guys :beer;, but I value anyones educated opinion. Thanks

lol
5' 14" sounds smaller than 6' 2".
Hard pack and mashed tators I noticed a big difference in turning between my 155 sled with stock skis and the wifes 07 dragon 155 with SLP powder pro's. I am thinking of trying the tri-keel or similar ski. I will do some more research a little closer to the riding season.

Oh, I did put the holz easy steer spinkles on her 07 dragon.

Seriously though. There is only about 5" of difference in on the ground track length. I don't think it will make a HUGE difference, however, I will stand my my 155 statement. I just don't want anything longer. I need all the turning ability I can get to get into some of the areas I like to play in.

Best track length for me, 155 or 163?

Member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Westbound and down

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Similar threads