2011 800 E-Tec with 189" track. Pics included

Tim Healy · Jan 3, 2011

It is a little small I might go back to a 19 tooth but it picks up for sure. getting to the areas to play and on the road it sucks but going through it will lift and chew. and I am just playing the ratio game you know how much a bottom gear cost compared to a top gear. way cheaper to see if you even like it.

nuggetau · Jan 3, 2011

sledhead_24_7 said:
You can call me a lier but The Pro RMK consisatnly hits 45-53 mph in 3 ft of pow going up some steep long pulls. I can get 50 ish to high 40's and the other one is almost always around 45 mph all track speed. Actual graound speed is lower of coarse but still night and day faster than the stock 163".

Right now the motors are all stock. Waiting for some worth while go fast parts. We have been mostly focasing on clutching, clutching, clutching.

What gearing, which drivers? What altitude? I don't see those track speeds with my 163E and you are saying you can propel a 189 faster than my 163? Must be some kinda magic, if you are selling some I'll take some. :face-icon-small-hap

440dart · Jan 3, 2011

nuggetau said:
Without a turbo to turn all that track I'm not sure i see the point? Track speed will likely be in the low 30's.

08 d7 slp twins 174 2.5 47mph on the speedo with 7th drivers iam guessing 40-43ish out of a lil 7hundo

440dart · Jan 3, 2011

Slick said:
The 153 & 4 guys r a hoot. Watch the vidoes of some guys boondocking and you'll notice the trees are usually spaced so you can pretty much keep full throttle all the time. These are the fun guys to stop in front of in deep stuff with a 163 or 174 when theres no option but stopping for them. Then tell me your 153 is your favorite for "boondocking" That ain't boondocking boys , its slalom racing, and it can be fun, sorta like a jet ski....for a half hour or so. I get a giggle out of so many buddies we ride with who don't jump but expound on the superior virtues of the "short track".. , but hey I guess they're sorta helping keep me in shape. LOL

slalom racing hahahahahah

pfi572 · Jan 3, 2011

Have never been stuck and said to myself (wish i had a shorter track) as far as length a agree with some of the other fellows that the track speed stayed about the same on mine but the GPS speed on the hill was quite abit better than the 163x2.5
Sled stays on top alot better and doesn't trench.
I only went the 2.5 also due to not wanting lugs ripped off and didn't want to install 7 tooth drivers.
I run 25/63 gearing on the belt drive and haven't had any trouble yet but did have with 20/49 gearing on the chain. Broke two in 200 miles.
I have always went the longest a person could but we will have to see what that ends up to be.

174x2.5x16 for me and if they build this track for production i would buy.:face-icon-small-hap

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

nuggetau said:
What gearing, which drivers? What altitude? I don't see those track speeds with my 163E and you are saying you can propel a 189 faster than my 163? Must be some kinda magic, if you are selling some I'll take some. :face-icon-small-hap

I did not lose any speed from the 163". But did pick up large amounts of ground speed. Due to not trenching everywhere. Now the sled just comes up and planes across the top of the snow.

We ride between 7500 ft and 10,000ft in the Jackson Hole area.

turboless terry · Jan 4, 2011

Was at cooke for new years and got some 163's unstuck with my little 153. It was intight stuff that you can't hold it wide open usually. Do you think it was the sleds track was too short.? Should he have got a 174 or 189 instead of the 163? It had nothing to do with any of that. It was pilot error! I have a turbo on mine but in the tight trees you aren't gaining that much when you can't open it up that much. I have no doubt you have more traction. It would be stupid to say my 153 has more than a 189. What I will say is they will not turn as sharp. I did lines in the trees, that I just barely mademyself, and they couldn't follow. A shortbox crew cab turns sharper than a long box crew cab.
I am not sitting here bragging but I know I play in as tight of stuff as anyone. I got back to the motel and my nose was cut. Cooke has about as good of snow pack as anywhere so I know it is not that. I know I am right and you know you are right so we are just going to butt heads on this. If you guys ever get down to the big timber, bozeman area give me a holler. Don't get that 189 stuck or that would be worse than getting my old turbo nytro unstuck. Nice looking sled.

Reeb · Jan 4, 2011

no turbo, 7500ft+ elevation, 189x2.4 track, 50mph track speed.......you wanted someone to call you a liar.......I'll step up cause that's BS.

You might like the school bus feel and want to justify it by claiming you only gained performance but that's horsechit. Sorry, but I've swapped too many tracks and played with too many set-ups and sleds to believe there were no negatives to going that long.

As far as boondocking.......longer tracks = crutch. Wanna be a better rider, learn to ride a short track and put it places your buddies with the longer tracks go. You can take that to the bank.

And if your ever in BC riding, I'd be glad to meet up with ya and put dinner on the line. We even ride at lower elevation so your sled will perform even better!

I'm not trying to be a dick, just taking you up on your offer to call you out. Happy Riding!

I am going to let my bro know that 189's might be available cause I'm sure him and the rest of the Yammi faithful will be chomping at the bit to get their hands on a 16x3 version of this slick.

winter brew · Jan 4, 2011

What drivers are you running? 2.52 X ?? tooth? And are the speeds being corrected vs the 2.86x 8's?

maxwellzx · Jan 4, 2011

Reeb said:
no turbo, 7500ft+ elevation, 189x2.4 track, 50mph track speed.......you wanted someone to call you a liar.......I'll step up cause that's BS.

You might like the school bus feel and want to justify it by claiming you only gained performance but that's horsechit. Sorry, but I've swapped too many tracks and played with too many set-ups and sleds to believe there were no negatives to going that long.

As far as boondocking.......longer tracks = crutch. Wanna be a better rider, learn to ride a short track and put it places your buddies with the longer tracks go. You can take that to the bank.

And if your ever in BC riding, I'd be glad to meet up with ya and put dinner on the line. We even ride at lower elevation so your sled will perform even better!

I'm not trying to be a dick, just taking you up on your offer to call you out. Happy Riding!

I am going to let my bro know that 189's might be available cause I'm sure him and the rest of the Yammi faithful will be chomping at the bit to get their hands on a 16x3 version of this slick.

im gona step up because thats bs!

longer tracks are not crutches. they simply open up more opportunities and better snow. i came from a 144 to my 163 and there are days that chris buradnt couldnt follow me on a 154 the snow is just that deep and that steep.

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

winter brew said:
What drivers are you running? 2.52 X ?? tooth? And are the speeds being corrected vs the 2.86x 8's?

The drivers are 2.52 x 9 tooth, they are very close in diameter to the 2.86 x 8 tooth. The sppeds are just off of the speedo on the dash.

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

Reeb said:
no turbo, 7500ft+ elevation, 189x2.4 track, 50mph track speed.......you wanted someone to call you a liar.......I'll step up cause that's BS.

You might like the school bus feel and want to justify it by claiming you only gained performance but that's horsechit. Sorry, but I've swapped too many tracks and played with too many set-ups and sleds to believe there were no negatives to going that long.

As far as boondocking.......longer tracks = crutch. Wanna be a better rider, learn to ride a short track and put it places your buddies with the longer tracks go. You can take that to the bank.

And if your ever in BC riding, I'd be glad to meet up with ya and put dinner on the line. We even ride at lower elevation so your sled will perform even better!

I'm not trying to be a dick, just taking you up on your offer to call you out. Happy Riding!

I am going to let my bro know that 189's might be available cause I'm sure him and the rest of the Yammi faithful will be chomping at the bit to get their hands on a 16x3 version of this slick.

Everyone has an opinion, and that is yours.

I am just saying what I have been observing. If you have something you feel the need to prove come on down to Wyoming and ride it for yourself and you tell me. I will gladly let any one ride it if they want, you just have be somewhere close or meet up with us.
All I can say is what the speedo is telling me and the fact that it hardly slows down going up hill. I do not want to make exaggerated claims, I am just stating what I have seen when riding all 3 sleds.

We wanted something more than a 174 3.0 pitch because of the lower paddle count.

Example 174/3(pitch)= 58 bars, now for the sake of easy math lets say the 174 has 2 paddles per bar. 58x2=116 paddles, Half of which are on the ground 58 paddles . Of coarse the 174 alternates 1 bar then 2 bars but...

now a 189/2.52=75 bars. 75x2=150 paddles, 75 paddles. Lots more traction

I too would like a 16 wide, but you have to deal with what you've got.

toms · Jan 4, 2011

sledhead_24_7 said:
The drivers are 2.52 x 9 tooth, they are very close in diameter to the 2.86 x 8 tooth. The sppeds are just off of the speedo on the dash.

Glad the suspension parts are working out. To let the cat out of the bag, the parts we sent you were part of the turbo specific suspension we had been developing, (coupled with the new 3-D lever arms) for the new E-Tec turbo kits. You want to talk about a jaw dropper!!!!!. I can only imagine what that combination would do with your 189" rails. (Kinda reminds of the roadrunner cartoons I watched when I was a kid. Can you say meep-meep?). Clutches are working well for us as well. We have the stock E-Tecs working very well also. We should have more pictures up on our website at www.tomssnowmobile.com
Lokks like we are going to have a good winter testing!!!!

Motley Doo · Jan 4, 2011

I don't think everyone can be jumping on the fact that this is too long! They all have there place.....

And as for boondocking, since I'm 280 lbs riding weight, I NEED more track to go where all you light little buggers go on a 151! I, myself, have absolutely NO issues throwing a 162 around for boondocking, but my extra weight makes it easier. Not saying it's a track for everyone, but it suits me and my riding style, just that heavier setups need bigger tracks. All the boys commenting here that ride up here in NW Montana know, lots of trees, usually no descent base, no run in's, very little momentum, big tracks that try there hardest to float at low speeds are king. 144's would be better for the tree riding but you can't even get into the trees without a big track, and I know other places are like this....

Not to mention, big tracks open up suspension possibilities. Big wheel kits, big drivers, and tall skids all take up track length, this would be a great way to get you back to the footprint of a 174 on a sled with a 10" wheel kit and big drivers.

So how did you guys "make" it? laminate two tracks together? Good on yah' for trying it, I'd imagine if nothing else the straight shot hill climber boys will like it! haha it was only a matter of time....

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

Motley Doo said:
I don't think everyone can be jumping on the fact that this is too long! They all have there place.....

And as for boondocking, since I'm 280 lbs riding weight, I NEED more track to go where all you light little buggers go on a 151! I, myself, have absolutely NO issues throwing a 162 around for boondocking, but my extra weight makes it easier. Not saying it's a track for everyone, but it suits me and my riding style, just that heavier setups need bigger tracks. All the boys commenting here that ride up here in NW Montana know, lots of trees, usually no descent base, no run in's, very little momentum, big tracks that try there hardest to float at low speeds are king. 144's would be better for the tree riding but you can't even get into the trees without a big track, and I know other places are like this....

Not to mention, big tracks open up suspension possibilities. Big wheel kits, big drivers, and tall skids all take up track length, this would be a great way to get you back to the footprint of a 174 on a sled with a 10" wheel kit and big drivers.

So how did you guys "make" it? laminate two tracks together? Good on yah' for trying it, I'd imagine if nothing else the straight shot hill climber boys will like it! haha it was only a matter of time....

Well since at the moment they are prototypes we kinda glued and bolted together. when riding the trees in the pow longer = better because less time stuck and more forward progress than the shorter tracks. I personally hate trench warfare and this definantly helps out in that department.

turboless terry · Jan 4, 2011

maxwellzx said:
im gona step up because thats bs!

longer tracks are not crutches. they simply open up more opportunities and better snow. i came from a 144 to my 163 and there are days that chris buradnt couldnt follow me on a 154 the snow is just that deep and that steep.

That's a pretty bold statement.
There might be some merit to that on a steep hill but steep and deep in the trees,where rider level is involved, and your turkey done. It is like you guys think you are the only ones that can play in the steep or deep. Do they only have that in your state? You think we can't creep along or stop and get going again. I can stop on any hill and go again. I'm not stopping straight up the hill. Neither are you or you will be stuck.
The difference between you guys and me is that if you get stuck it is because you don't have enough track or power. When I get stuck it is because of pilot error.
I don't think long tracks are a crutch until you get in tight stuff.

tukernater · Jan 4, 2011

IMO it would take less power to turn a 189 track thats a foot under the snow, then a 163 thats three feet under the snow trying to get on top.

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

toms said:
Glad the suspension parts are working out. To let the cat out of the bag, the parts we sent you were part of the turbo specific suspension we had been developing, (coupled with the new 3-D lever arms) for the new E-Tec turbo kits. You want to talk about a jaw dropper!!!!!. I can only imagine what that combination would do with your 189" rails. (Kinda reminds of the roadrunner cartoons I watched when I was a kid. Can you say meep-meep?). Clutches are working well for us as well. We have the stock E-Tecs working very well also. We should have more pictures up on our website at www.tomssnowmobile.com
Lokks like we are going to have a good winter testing!!!!

Yes sir Tom, how's it going on the clutch parts? Hows the turbo testing going?

Thanks again for the help on the suspension and tweaking of the evo air, as I believe that is one of the major reasons why we are have the results that we are.

sledhead_24_7 · Jan 4, 2011

tukernater said:
IMO it would take less power to turn a 189 track thats a foot under the snow, then a 163 thats three feet under the snow trying to get on top.

That is what our thoughts were as well. So far the sleds are getting more ground speed without losing mph if not picking up some.

In the flats riding 3-4ft of pow the sleds feels like you have a go juice pushed, it floats that well.

turboless terry · Jan 4, 2011

tukernater said:
IMO it would take less power to turn a 189 track thats a foot under the snow, then a 163 thats three feet under the snow trying to get on top.

That is the craziest thing I've ever heard of. Look at the difference on the rails. I think they said there is 11 more inches of track in the snow pulling more snow. I would bet there is 10-15 more pounds of rotating weight. It doesn't matter if the 163 is 5 feet under the snow and is not moving. It will still turn a smaller, lighter track, pulling on less snow, easier. Period.
Awesome sled. Sorry about wrecking your thread.

2011 800 E-Tec with 189" track. Pics included

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Modding mini's

Premium Member

Active 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