Time for a poll

Ov3rthetop · Mar 3, 2015

That 2.6 is going to be an amazing track. The pitch isn't to far off. There will be more info on why they didn't run the QD on the 3in. But they already had to modify the gears to make the 2.6 work with a little lower gear ratio as well. Them dropping the shafts affected the gears they could run in this chassis. It would have been no problem in the old Polaris chassis.

bryceraisanen · Mar 3, 2015

Lol no kidding?! Where are all the 3" guys?

....crickets

richracer1 · Mar 3, 2015

Ov3rthetop said:
There will be more info on why they didn't run the QD on the 3in.

You can hear it for yourself if you listen to the pod cast that's linked in the top sticky thread. Main reason is gear ratios.

bryceraisanen · Mar 3, 2015

bryceraisanen said:
Lol no kidding?! Where are all the 3" guys?

....crickets

Riding in SoCo. Meanwhile still bare dirt in mn

hogan assault · Mar 3, 2015

I think the 155 3" will be a blast! Would be nice to have the QD also but when I am way back in the middle of no where its always in the back of my mind that this will be the time my belt breaks. Always carry a spare but will still feel slightly more confident with the chain case. :beer;

Ov3rthetop · Mar 4, 2015

richracer1 said:
You can hear it for yourself if you listen to the pod cast that's linked in the top sticky thread. Main reason is gear ratios.

Yes gear ratios which would require a larger bottom gear. With the drop they couldn't fit it in. Do you really think with their extensive development team they couldn't put a ratio together for it?

die hard poo · Mar 4, 2015

The thing that concerns me the most is that it seems by that slide that the 3" is gonna suck in hard pack snow. And unfortunately my riding isn't always in the 3-4ft of bottomless pow, so that made the decision easier. But if the were an upgrade in all snow conditions like some people elude that the aftermarket 3" do, I would be more swayed that direction.

At the end of the day, 13lb weight penalty, less efficient chaincase, and lack of versatility of the 3" is swaying me towards the 2.6" and bd. I will see how well the stock form gearing works and go with a Kurt gear down if I see a reason to. I love how good my 14' felt with the Kurt gd kit. One of the best bang for the buck mods.

adamg · Mar 4, 2015

die hard poo said:
The thing that concerns me the most is that it seems by that slide that the 3" is gonna suck in hard pack snow. And unfortunately my riding isn't always in the 3-4ft of bottomless pow, so that made the decision easier. But if the were an upgrade in all snow conditions like some people elude that the aftermarket 3" do, I would be more swayed that direction.

At the end of the day, 13lb weight penalty, less efficient chaincase, and lack of versatility of the 3" is swaying me towards the 2.6" and bd. I will see how well the stock form gearing works and go with a Kurt gear down if I see a reason to. I love how good my 14' felt with the Kurt gd kit. One of the best bang for the buck mods.

They are offering you a bigger track and proper gearing. Why not just take them up on that offer? The thought of buying a new sled and then wanting to put an aftermarket belt drive on to achieve the same thing that the 3" factory option gives you seems like doing things the hard way.

milehighassassin · Mar 5, 2015

Dartos said:
I am still amazed that Polaris was forward thinking and put out the first factory belt drive but dumbfounded at the narrow mindedness that has no option to change the pully for additional gear ratios.

That would be a nightmare for the parts catalog. When you change a sprocket on a chaincase you can shorten the chain or use the tensioner to take up or create more slack.

With the belt drive, any time you changed any sprocket you would more than likely need a completely different length belt. Unless you magically changed the top and the bottom in perfect fashion. Polaris would basically need 20 different belts.

Pro-8250 · Mar 5, 2015

Nice Poll You Have Going There.

2.6 and belt drive for me. We have two and are quite happy with both 800 2.4" 155" Pro RMKs.
Not long ago the big sales pitch was the Quick Drive belt with less rotating mass and how much better it was that the chain case. But it also good news for those who want the chain case. Seems to be a win win situation for the Polaris riders. And wanna be Polaris riders. :eyebrows:

Dartos · Mar 5, 2015

Dartos said:
I am still amazed that Polaris was forward thinking and put out the first factory belt drive but dumbfounded at the narrow mindedness that has no option to change the pully for additional gear ratios.

milehighassassin said:
That would be a nightmare for the parts catalog. When you change a sprocket on a chaincase you can shorten the chain or use the tensioner to take up or create more slack.

With the belt drive, any time you changed any sprocket you would more than likely need a completely different length belt. Unless you magically changed the top and the bottom in perfect fashion. Polaris would basically need 20 different belts.

Which is why they should toss the current system and go to a tensioner system, have some built in adjustability!!!

Then just change the pulley, set the tension and BAMB, your done.

05900 · Mar 6, 2015

That .4 of an inch is a GAME CHANGER..... at least in the Ski Doo forum.

Wyorever · Mar 6, 2015

3" for me. The benefits are well worth it when it's deep. I don't notice, or see any drawbacks with my 3". Everyone runs scratchers anyways.

dude · Mar 6, 2015

3" for me... Screw low snow conditions and the possible small loss of performance i'd have with the 3" vs the 2.6. Well worth it when the conditions are what we all dream about and live for... 3 feet + of fresh deep pow. When we get what we all wish for I want to kill it, and have the best chance to go wherever I want, and have the best chance of not wasting my days energy on getting unstuck. I wana blast through areas with the most confidence a sled can give me which in this case it the 3". I'll be happy to run my scratchers etc. and tool around on those non deep snow days. Reality is even in hard pack conditions we all know how to find soft deep snow in the north facing treed areas and would still be glad to have the 3 inch taking us further then the 2.6 will. Personally I've always taken the longest tracks, and most cc offered and been glad with my choice, but to each his own. Chain case or belt drive... who cares when the pows over the hood. Honestly I don't think anyone who didn't know which they had (QD or chain) under the hood in 3+ feet of fresh pow could tell the difference... its WFO all day anyway in 3 feet + which is how it should be, and the belt drive or chain case isn't gonna change the smile on my face. Oh did I say I'll take the 163 with the 3" all year long

Forgot... The question was originally "which is the best all around track?" Well I guess if you care about less then perfect days go with the 2.6 IMHO

sledheader · Mar 6, 2015

dude said:
3" for me... Screw low snow conditions and the possible small loss of performance i'd have with the 3" vs the 2.6. Well worth it when the conditions are what we all dream about and live for... 3 feet + of fresh deep pow. When we get what we all wish for I want to kill it, and have the best chance to go wherever I want, and have the best chance of not wasting my days energy on getting unstuck. I wana blast through areas with the most confidence a sled can give me which in this case it the 3". I'll be happy to run my scratchers etc. and tool around on those non deep snow days. Reality is even in hard pack conditions we all know how to find soft deep snow in the north facing treed areas and would still be glad to have the 3 inch taking us further then the 2.6 will. Personally I've always taken the longest tracks, and most cc offered and been glad with my choice, but to each his own. Chain case or belt drive... who cares when the pows over the hood. Honestly I don't think anyone who didn't know which they had (QD or chain) under the hood in 3+ feet of fresh pow could tell the difference... its WFO all day anyway in 3 feet + which is how it should be, and the belt drive or chain case isn't gonna change the smile on my face. Oh did I say I'll take the 163 with the 3" all year long

Forgot... The question was originally "which is the best all around track?" Well I guess if you care about less then perfect days go with the 2.6 IMHO

That's your opinion. I really wish I could have that opinion and be able to ride mostly days with powder, but especially this last winter, I don't get the opportunity to do that. About the most powder I've ever ridden in. and I mean EVER is probably 2-2-1/2 feet. 2.6 will be better for me, and I don't think will give up too much in the deep stuff.

dude · Mar 6, 2015

sledheader said:
That's your opinion. I really wish I could have that opinion and be able to ride mostly days with powder, but especially this last winter, I don't get the opportunity to do that. About the most powder I've ever ridden in. and I mean EVER is probably 2-2-1/2 feet. 2.6 will be better for me, and I don't think will give up too much in the deep stuff.

Yep... just my opinion and yours, and that's cool... No pissing match here

I'm lucky enough to live in Utah where we do get deep days more often then a lot of places. Even this year has had some sweet deep days that pushed my 2013 163" to it's limits and I wish I had more track. All good... just wanted to speak up for guys who are wondering if anyone is going for the 3" track. I promise you, some snowesters out there read my opinion and had them shaking their head to go with the 3". Honestly I'm happy to hear a lot of folks are thinking about going with the 2.6, then there'll be more untracked deep pow they can't get to and I can... I'd recommend everyone going with the 155 too... I'll be higher, deeper, fresher, and further... all good by me ;-)

Picture from 3/3/15. believe me I would have loved a 3" lug... but I did have a blast on my 2.4 too so what ever.

ghost rider · Mar 15, 2015

Track Lenght vs Depth

Options are a great thing in any business, Polaris is offering about any combo under the sun for track lug and length. As well as chaincase or belt driven options.

I have never owned a belt driven sled but have some seat time on a couple. They do seem to have a quicker response on the initial stab of the throttle and when your bapping to double a whoop or clear a creek I noticed it the most. But once the throttle was to the bars in a meadow or pulling a chute the sled didn't know what transmission was putting the power to the track.

As far as the track options go,unless the new reengineered skid was designed ecspecially for the shorter 155 3X tracks. They are going to have transfer issues on the deep days in the steep trees and pulling narrow chutes. They will be a riot boondocking in the deep meadows and for the occasional cornice and cliff drops though.

I could be Bass Ackwards on this one and a properly tuned rear skid with the right amount of rider input may get the job done. Just with my experiences of owning a couple of short tracks that where eventually stretched to 163" after having some of the same issues as above. We will have to wait till next season to find out.

Prayn4snow · Apr 9, 2015

2.6" X 155" for me. If I still lived in AK I'd get the 3" x 163, but no for the U.P.

CO Powder · May 5, 2015

I rode the 153 x 3 '16 Cat for a weekend in hard, set up snow. I had my '14 Pro 155 x 2.4 along too. I did not see any reason not to go with the 3". It works as well as the 2.4 and I can't imagine the 2.6 is much different. Of course the Cat guys went wild over the PC 2.6 so who knows? We have plenty of deep days and I will be on a 163 x 3 when I buy an Axys.

sledheader · May 5, 2015

CO Powder said:
I rode the 153 x 3 '16 Cat for a weekend in hard, set up snow. I had my '14 Pro 155 x 2.4 along too. I did not see any reason not to go with the 3". It works as well as the 2.4 and I can't imagine the 2.6 is much different. Of course the Cat guys went wild over the PC 2.6 so who knows? We have plenty of deep days and I will be on a 163 x 3 when I buy an Axys.

Less weight, quickdrive, and not as hard on hi fax or as hard to keep cool. Those were my reasons. Plus it would be cheaper to go 3" than it would to go to quickdrive, if I think I need a 3"

Time for a poll

What is the best all around track

2.6"

3.0"

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Moderator: Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Embrace the BRAAAAAAP!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads