T
How about a lightweight tank that moves the weight further forward?
Flyweight Expert
- Thread starter TreeThrasher
- Start date
Doesn't everyone complain about how much weight a skidoo has over the front end?
Did anyone watch the video that snowest put up on youtube last week with TJ from Lincoln county customs? He claimed that a Kmod lost 20 lbs in a G4 chassis? That can't be right. If it did kmod would be advertising that right? Has anyone run the Nextech Carbon skid in a Doo like Burandt runs in his sleds?
I thought the same thing, 20lbs is a ton and you get an awesome skid out of it.
He was talking about the 600 in the video though. However, it would be crazy to think that the 600 skid weighs more than the 850's. You'd think they'd be nearly identical right?
Yep they should be identical. Im not sure what he was comparing too. Does anyone know what a stock 165 skid weighs? and a Kmod 165?
Just start drilling holes everywhere in the chassis. Doesn't cost you anything and you'll lose weight 
Seriously though, the best way to loose weight on your sled is weight watchers, Jenny Craig, or the like (if you're like most of us). Get in better shape for more energy and save weight at the same time. I kind of laugh at spending $100 to save .3lbs on the sled when you can just skip breakfast and get the same results. I know, easier to just throw money at it because it takes less effort, just saying though.
Seriously though, the best way to loose weight on your sled is weight watchers, Jenny Craig, or the like (if you're like most of us). Get in better shape for more energy and save weight at the same time. I kind of laugh at spending $100 to save .3lbs on the sled when you can just skip breakfast and get the same results. I know, easier to just throw money at it because it takes less effort, just saying though.
Way to take all the fun out of it.... I was just shocked when i heard them say the KMOD takes that much weight out.... If it did take that kind of weight out and take some of the wheelie/trenching out of the Doo it might be kind of cool.Just start drilling holes everywhere in the chassis. Doesn't cost you anything and you'll lose weight
Yeah, if it took that much weight off, it would be made of tin foil.
A
Yep. 1L water bottle weight 1kg (2.2lbs) and cost 2$. Don't buy it, you save 2$ and save 2.2lbs. The $/lbs ratio is pretty high there !!! LOLJust start drilling holes everywhere in the chassis. Doesn't cost you anything and you'll lose weight
Just start drilling holes everywhere in the chassis. Doesn't cost you anything and you'll lose weight
There is always someone trying to derail a good tread like this. Of course you can go on a diet but that was not where the OP was going. Assume this guys is a buck forty already.
They make the carbon skid, like burandt runs, for the doo. 13 pounds on polaris on his sled. 3600 is without shocks i believe.
Skinz helium hood and side panels specialty x muffler took 22 pounds off my sled and its noticeable also very functional.
Just trying to add a little humor, sorry if I offend. Nowadays, I believe everyone can use a little amusement in their life...
No problem it is just that response always comes up when talking about dropping sled weight.
X
Boondocker 97 is correct. Weight loss is an exercise in spending money for little noticeable gain unless you can obtain the loss at a reasonable distance away from the center of pivot. That is because it has a much greater affect on the moment of inertia (resistance to change). Otherwise, the loss has to be significant. I could add 25 pounds directly to the center of pivot (at a point) of any sled and nobody would notice because it has little to no effect on inertia. Therefore, it is not weight that matters, but weight at a distance. Inertia for angular acceleration equals the sum of ( mass x radius^2). This shows to have an effect on how fast the sled responds to your input is much more sensitive to distance than weight. And there is no effect if distance is zero. Another thing to think about is that the rider weight has a big effect on force. Smaller people simply have less height and weight than larger people on average. Therefore they are more sensitive to weight loss because they cannot generate as much angular acceleration to initiate a response from a sled.
A more efficient way to combat the effects of weight are to increase power by a lot. But big gains often cannot be done in stages and take considerably more money up front. Horsepower to weight is the measure you want to consider when you evaluate weight assuming no affect to inertia for angular acceleration.
A more efficient way to combat the effects of weight are to increase power by a lot. But big gains often cannot be done in stages and take considerably more money up front. Horsepower to weight is the measure you want to consider when you evaluate weight assuming no affect to inertia for angular acceleration.
M
This would mean that lighter skis and front suspension components would be worth it.
Likewise, keeping weight off the back end (like the tunnel) would be worth it. Especially the farther out you go on the back end.
U
Lightweight gas and a monster sticker
A
Someone mentioned it but then followed up with the humor angle so I'll be the bad guy to lay out the truth and not back peddal. Sleds and their respective weights these days have advanced to the point that if people just kept their bodies in check we'd never see one of these posts again.
M
Don't kid yourself. Chris Burandt is in exceptional physical condition, and that guy rides the lightest sleds on the snow!
Everyone benefits from a light sled, and they will always be able to be made lighter than the factory makes them.
X
Haha. I know that sounds funny because it can be obvious, but I wanted to be clear about the measures relative to the inputs of inertia. And small could be interpreted along one dimension or the other without considering the extremes holding one dimension constant.
Similar threads
- 144
