3"vs 2.6" on axys

klpilot · Dec 16, 2015

C'mon guys... it's a taller track. It does make a difference. If someone tells you it doesn't have them put a 1" paddle back on their sled or heck I'll even spot you a 2" and see how you like it. It's progression... these sleds now have the power to turn them properly.

A 2.6 will work great, but when it's really light and deep give me the big lug. When it's marginal you don't need either. Easy decision for me.

keithw · Dec 16, 2015

My 163 2.6 did great today.

No base and 30+ inches of fresh dry powder. Was impressed with how well this sled gets on the snow. Still not going to call it instantaneous lift though. Although that is a fairly accurate description.

Devilmanak · Dec 16, 2015

klpilot said:
C'mon guys... it's a taller track. It does make a difference. If someone tells you it doesn't have them put a 1" paddle back on their sled or heck I'll even spot you a 2" and see how you like it. It's progression... these sleds now have the power to turn them properly.

A 2.6 will work great, but when it's really light and deep give me the big lug. When it's marginal you don't need either. Easy decision for me.

Hey smart guy, maybe you should actually ride with both as I have and make an INTELLIGENT post. There are a LOT more variables than paddle length. Durometer, paddle spacing and length, track weight, track speed, chaincase vs belt drive. But hey, I have only ridden 600 miles this year, so what do I know........

Devilmanak · Dec 16, 2015

keithw said:
My 163 2.6 did great today.

No base and 30+ inches of fresh dry powder. Was impressed with how well this sled gets on the snow. Still not going to call it instantaneous lift though. Although that is a fairly accurate description.

Lol. I hate Polaris advertising SO much, but that is the ONLY way to describe it!

steepndeep800 · Dec 16, 2015

klpilot said:
C'mon guys... it's a taller track. It does make a difference. If someone tells you it doesn't have them put a 1" paddle back on their sled or heck I'll even spot you a 2" and see how you like it. It's progression... these sleds now have the power to turn them properly.

A 2.6 will work great, but when it's really light and deep give me the big lug. When it's marginal you don't need either. Easy decision for me.

I cant personally say because I have not ridden both side by side but, here is my take on it. In Certain situations the 3" will be better, in alot of situations the 2.6" will be as good or better.
I believe someone else in another post here was correct the 2.6 is a dual durometer track the 3 is not... Its a give and take.

Talking to someone I highly respect and rides alot on these sleds in development. Basically told me what I'm saying. 15% of the time the 3" will out do the 2.6. It was not a game changer at any point while he rode them in any condition.
it isn't worth giving up the belt drive imo.
Time will tell if that is how most see it in action.
I have not seen a guy with a 3" say he was heads and tails better than the 2.6 yet.

Devilmanak · Dec 16, 2015

I asked about the dual durometer before, I think it makes the 2.6 equally or outperform the 3.0. The 3.0 seems to trench a tiny bit more, the 2.6 seems to "jump" on top of the snow better. Either way, Poo has upped the game, I hope other manufacturers follow suit next year!

klpilot · Dec 17, 2015

Devilmanak said:
Hey smart guy, maybe you should actually ride with both as I have and make an INTELLIGENT post. There are a LOT more variables than paddle length. Durometer, paddle spacing and length, track weight, track speed, chaincase vs belt drive. But hey, I have only ridden 600 miles this year, so what do I know........

ha ha ha. glad you like your track. I like it too.

next time we'll talk politics and religion.

dude · Dec 17, 2015

steepndeep800 said:
I cant personally say because I have not ridden both side by side but, here is my take on it. In Certain situations the 3" will be better, in alot of situations the 2.6" will be as good or better.
I believe someone else in another post here was correct the 2.6 is a dual durometer track the 3 is not... Its a give and take.

Talking to someone I highly respect and rides alot on these sleds in development. Basically told me what I'm saying. 15% of the time the 3" will out do the 2.6. It was not a game changer at any point while he rode them in any condition.
it isn't worth giving up the belt drive imo.
Time will tell if that is how most see it in action.
I have not seen a guy with a 3" say he was heads and tails better than the 2.6 yet.

Well put IMO steepndeep. I was out over the weekend with my 163 3" and swapped sleds with a 163 2.6 in some pretty deep snow. Devilmanak was there with us and as I put it if you didn't tell me if I was on a 3" or the 2.6 I really don't think I could tell you which was which, they both rocked and were pretty much side by side in playing around in a variety of situations. Neither one pulled away from the other unless there was some incidental track poaching etc. I will say I'm happy with having the 3" cause I know there will be that time I'm just barely gonna make it and the 3" has to have a better chance then the 2.6 to just keep chugging alone while I'm pushing her with my feet to get her to pop over the top. You've all been there right. I'll take the better chance and not sticking it with the 3". Just my opinion...

meathooker · Dec 17, 2015

not a direct comparison between Axys but a Pro to Axys but still found it interesting.

some buddies were riding last weekend one on a axys 155" 2.6 and the other on a Pro 155" 3". Axys Rider weights 30lbs more than Pro rider. they got to a decently steep hill and the Por had to zig zag 3 times across the hill to make it over and the Axys shot right over the top.

Jaynelson · Dec 17, 2015

klpilot said:
C'mon guys... it's a taller track. It does make a difference. If someone tells you it doesn't have them put a 1" paddle back on their sled or heck I'll even spot you a 2" and see how you like it. It's progression... these sleds now have the power to turn them properly.

As with anything tho...there's a point of diminishing returns. Many people are having a tough time accepting that with the new sleds and the new riding style...the only thing holding them back is their riding ability. The capability level of the new sleds is very high, and most of us can't exploit all the performance from the sled, so a small difference like .4" track lug...when there are so many other variables...is basically irrelevant. Something to talk about and that's about it.

ReTodd · Dec 17, 2015

You won't really notice a difference in the longer paddle until you ride one of those 4' days where you have to be pinned in the flats....other than the lower gearing on the 3" is obvious.

Last year my 15' pro (stock) kept up with a 163" T3 every day until we had one of THOSE days...I had to poach my tracks to get out while he tractored up.

Both are great sleds...my buddies are on the 2.6" and so far they have been right there with mine....but I know when the uber deep day (not 2-3') comes mine will work better!!!

Rt

NytroNorm · Dec 18, 2015

Anybody have any flatland experience with the two tracks? whats the durometer like?

Polaris RMK M.M.R. · Dec 18, 2015

NytroNorm said:
Anybody have any flatland experience with the two tracks? whats the durometer like?

I have 30 miles in Minnesota 5"-12" on my sks with the 2.6" and rode it side by side against my older '09 dragon RMK with a 5.1 series 2.4" track with the fins cut. The new 2.6" spins out less on ice roads and marginal snow conditions. It hooks up better in the setup ditch snow from the snow plow as well. Sidehills very nice. It kicks up ALOT more snow... Better cooling? Haha time will tell how strong it is.

kmo · Dec 22, 2015

Devilmanak said:
I asked about the dual durometer before, I think it makes the 2.6 equally or outperform the 3.0. The 3.0 seems to trench a tiny bit more, the 2.6 seems to "jump" on top of the snow better. Either way, Poo has upped the game, I hope other manufacturers follow suit next year!

I think the reason the 2.6 feels like it jumps on the snow better is the gearing. The 3" feels like it is geared way too low. I am gearing my 3" up. My 2013 Pro with a 3" was geared much higher than this new 3" which is supposed to be a much lighter track. And it worked extremely well. I'll report back my findings....

Jaynelson · Dec 22, 2015

Rode a 2.6" 155 and a 3.0" 155 yesterday. The belt drive and 2.6 makes for a slightly snappier, more responsive sled. 3" feels like the throttle response and direct feeling gets numbed down ever so slightly, but you can notice. Didn't climb them against each other...just notice the different feel

mountainhorse · Dec 23, 2015

One of the things is that I truly believe... that the the sleds are clutched to a large degree... for the 2.6" track...all the clutching is the same in the AXYS-mtn 800's, regardless of track... the gearing is different...but I'd bet the snappyness may return with more optimal clutching on the 3".

The Helix is the same on the AXYS-mtn 600, and all the AXYS-mtn 800's, the secondary spring, primary spring, primary weights are the same on all the AXYS-mtn 800's...

IMO... MUCH less than ideal... but meets production standardization and cost models well.

If you have the 3"... you will probably gain from some more optimal clutch setups.

.

kmo · Dec 24, 2015

mountainhorse said:
One of the things is that I truly believe... that the the sleds are clutched to a large degree... for the 2.6" track...all the clutching is the same in the AXYS-mtn 800's, regardless of track... the gearing is different...but I'd bet the snappyness may return with more optimal clutching on the 3".

The Helix is the same on the AXYS-mtn 600, and all the AXYS-mtn 800's, the secondary spring, primary spring, primary weights are the same on all the AXYS-mtn 800's...

IMO... MUCH less than ideal... but meets production standardization and cost models well.

If you have the 3"... you will probably gain from some more optimal clutch setups.

.

I agree, clutching AND gearing.....and adding a good belt drive is frosting on the cake!

ArcticChat · Jan 6, 2016

Axys 2.6 vs 3"

Anyone have a good comparison yet of the Axys 2.6 compared to the 3"? Seems a lot of people are jumping on the 3" but the belt would be nice too...

sledheader · Jan 6, 2016

http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=404827

Try Here

phatty · Jan 6, 2016

I have a fair amount of riding time on both 2.6" and the 3". Both on turbo and non turbo sleds. It crappy snow and in bottomless fluffy snow.

My experience with the 3":
For the first 150-200 miles this track wants to dig to the center of the earth. It puts the nose of the sled up and digs down deep. It seems after 150 miles or so the track soften ups a bit and then eases up and floats a little better.

My experience with the 2.6":
Right from the first trip this track seemed to float a little better compared to the 3" that wanted to dig down.

We have had 3 ridiculously deep days so far and I cannot say that I have seen any overall advantage to the 3" track. We had one set up snow day where I did feel the 3" push me around a bit (more noticeable on the 163 vs 155). Once i recognized how it handled it I forgot all about it. I also cannot say that there is any significant disadvantages to the 3".

My personal preference is the 155 2.6. Why? Because I feel the sled reacts quicker with the belt drive and shorter track. I have yet to see the 3" go or do anything I wasnt able to do on the 2.6, and I dont think I will.

The truth is you are going to be happy either way, some people like chocolate, some people like vanilla with hot fudge. Both are great :face-icon-small-coo

3"vs 2.6" on axys

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

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads