I probably got 40-50lbs on him too, lol.
155 vs. 163 Pro's.....Cons
- Thread starter wfieldin
- Start date
I asked Dan Adams for his opinion on this subject today as well since he has had plenty of seat time on all the new Axys sleds.
One of his quotes
"The 155 2.6 is by far the most nimble and I think it will do as good or even better than our current 163's!" He also said his rental fleet will all be 155s for next season.
Is sounds like the 155 in the new Axys is a little different animal then comparing a 155 vs 163 in the old Pro chassis. The "washing out" people have experienced with 155s in the past has been greatly reduced now with the narrow body work and revised suspension. Very few on here can give you a accurate opinion between the 2 since they are only giving you their experience they have had with the pro chassis, not the Axys chassis.
One of his quotes
"The 155 2.6 is by far the most nimble and I think it will do as good or even better than our current 163's!" He also said his rental fleet will all be 155s for next season.
Is sounds like the 155 in the new Axys is a little different animal then comparing a 155 vs 163 in the old Pro chassis. The "washing out" people have experienced with 155s in the past has been greatly reduced now with the narrow body work and revised suspension. Very few on here can give you a accurate opinion between the 2 since they are only giving you their experience they have had with the pro chassis, not the Axys chassis.
Last edited:
Makes you wonder if the guys going to a 3" 163 are making the right move
A
Well now we all see why Poo and the other mfgs offer so many options.
This discussion has been going on for 20 years now, shorter vs longer track.
To be point that Doo one upped everyone with a 174 offering.
The answer remains the same. Shorter track is more power to be ground, weighs less and not as good in deep light snow as a longer track. Longer track is opposite.
I got a 155 Pro now coming off a 162 M1k with a folded over wore out track. The 155 kicked that Cats @ss in every way except raw power climbing.
I've not had many good over the hood powder days in 3 years so the 155 is great. Could have been a 136 most rides he last couple years and got me home just fine too.
If I lived back in CO again, it would be 163 track ftw all day for me.
In WA the 155 is enough track.
This discussion has been going on for 20 years now, shorter vs longer track.
To be point that Doo one upped everyone with a 174 offering.
The answer remains the same. Shorter track is more power to be ground, weighs less and not as good in deep light snow as a longer track. Longer track is opposite.
I got a 155 Pro now coming off a 162 M1k with a folded over wore out track. The 155 kicked that Cats @ss in every way except raw power climbing.
I've not had many good over the hood powder days in 3 years so the 155 is great. Could have been a 136 most rides he last couple years and got me home just fine too.
If I lived back in CO again, it would be 163 track ftw all day for me.
In WA the 155 is enough track.
So what if the 163 handles closer to the pro rmk 155.
Rather than thinking the 155 is as good as the old 163 for climbing.
Think of the 163 as going better than the old 163 and handling like the old 155.
If the 163x3 is pushy i'll cut it then it will be no worse than the 2.6.
But i can make any size in between and try that.
I see that coming up and think it's worth mentioning that the 3" cut down to 2.6" is not likely to perform as well in powder as a stock 2.6". The cut track will likely wind up with stiffer lugs because they'll be thicker at the tip (giggity). Probably great for harder pack, but counter productive for light stuff.
That's kinda nitpicky, but a fair prediction IMO
That's kinda nitpicky, but a fair prediction IMO
I think a lot of it is really how engaged a rider wants to be.
A good example, one of my main riding buddies is my dad, im 25, 155# and in fairly good shape ( I ride 50+ days a season) and he's 51 180# and gets out maybe 25 total days a year.
with these comparisons assume 2 people riding together and the same tree'd hillsides/creeks/etc
For me, I enjoy the 155 class sleds. They definately give up some in the straight climbs and require a more active riding style when in technical terrain. Being shorter and more nimble it sort of just wanders around, floats the skis and is generally more "playful". I love this riding style. It suits how I want to enjoy my day, fast and aggressive. The sled reacts quickly to my body language and allows me to make split second calls on my line choice.
for my dad he enjoys the techincal terrain but prefers a little slower and more calculated technique. He wont take all of the wild lines the younger guys do and he doesn't want to deal with being stuck all the time as its flat tiring. the 163 class sleds work great for him as he can still go everywhere we do as far as general area to area access, but the sled is alot more stable and calm so he can pick and chose his route and not be hoping around like a mad man.
IMO, whichever riding style better describes you is how i point someone to a 155 or 163.
A good example, one of my main riding buddies is my dad, im 25, 155# and in fairly good shape ( I ride 50+ days a season) and he's 51 180# and gets out maybe 25 total days a year.
with these comparisons assume 2 people riding together and the same tree'd hillsides/creeks/etc
For me, I enjoy the 155 class sleds. They definately give up some in the straight climbs and require a more active riding style when in technical terrain. Being shorter and more nimble it sort of just wanders around, floats the skis and is generally more "playful". I love this riding style. It suits how I want to enjoy my day, fast and aggressive. The sled reacts quickly to my body language and allows me to make split second calls on my line choice.
for my dad he enjoys the techincal terrain but prefers a little slower and more calculated technique. He wont take all of the wild lines the younger guys do and he doesn't want to deal with being stuck all the time as its flat tiring. the 163 class sleds work great for him as he can still go everywhere we do as far as general area to area access, but the sled is alot more stable and calm so he can pick and chose his route and not be hoping around like a mad man.
IMO, whichever riding style better describes you is how i point someone to a 155 or 163.
But a 2.75-2.875" hmmm
I'm 220# so the 155 wont keep going to have the playfullness while riding technical steep terrain.
I wish i was 160#
But as is the 163 whips just fine for me.
Last edited:
But a 2.75-2.875" hmmm
I'm 220# so the 155 wont keep going to have the playfullness while riding technical steep terrain.
I wish i was 160#
But as is the 163 whips just fine for me.
Lol now we're splitting hairs.
Honestly I kind of doubt there will be mountains of difference even on the deepest of days between the 2.6 and the 3. I could be wrong but I mean, that's this |-| much difference lol
also, something that everyone isn't noticing,
sheetmetalfab is from AK, most of us are from the Rocky Mtns and ride high elevation, major difference in snow density and HP of sleds also. Food for thought.
Agreed I'm about 220 in riding gear. Always say that if I were 30-40lbs lighter I would ride a 155 and have no downside in the fluff. Plus the shorter ones come off the ground easier. But I probably haven't weighed 160lbs since I was in the 6th grade, so 163 it is lol. But it's not a night and day thing.But a 2.75-2.875" hmmm
I'm 220# so the 155 wont keep going to have the playfullness while riding technical steep terrain.
I wish i was 160#
But as is the 163 whips just fine for me.
And the 2.6" vs the 3" will be an even smaller difference in performance IMO. I bet 99/100 riders couldn't tell the difference in a blind taste test. There are just so many other variables in sledding. There would be a bigger performance difference in who's belt was newer and clutches were cleaner IMO. Even the puny 2.4" keeps up just fine really.
Last edited:
Similar threads
