Keith Curtis words on the 155/163 2.6" vs 163 3.0"

S

Spaarky

Well-known member

Oct 5, 2001

3,429

1,345

113

Chester, SD

• Mar 14, 2015

• #21

Scott said:

Outlaw Addict deserves this one. Haha

http://s420.photobucket.com/user/mainer5900/media/heyyyyyyyy.jpg.html

Click to expand...

This thread has taken a turn for the worse, but it's awesome!!!!!

Today has been weird. I open my FB book page and first thing I see is this big guy dancing in a Klim coat singing "I touch myself". Now I got you posting pics of Mike Tyson in drag. Please make it stop!!!

 

L

LoudHandle

Well-known member

Lifetime Membership

Apr 21, 2011

3,900

2,775

113

Valdez, AK

• Mar 14, 2015

• #22

Outlaw Addict said:

This thread has taken a turn for the worse, but it's awesome!!!!!

Today has been weird. I open my FB book page and first thing I see is this big guy dancing in a Klim coat singing "I touch myself". Now I got you posting pics of Mike Tyson in drag. Please make it stop!!!

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'll try and stay under my bridge more often in the future.

It can be entertaining, seeing where and how people take things. A lot of the time they miss the meat of the post and head off on a tangent due to a single word or phrase. :noidea::doh::crazy:

 

S

Spaarky

Well-known member

Oct 5, 2001

3,429

1,345

113

Chester, SD

• Mar 14, 2015

• #23

LH.... So you were the one singing, "I touch myself"???:face-icon-small-win

Sometimes we just gotta have a little fun and not be so serious.

 

L

LoudHandle

Well-known member

Lifetime Membership

Apr 21, 2011

3,900

2,775

113

Valdez, AK

• Mar 14, 2015

• #24

Outlaw Addict said:

LH.... So you were the one singing, "I touch myself"???:face-icon-small-win

Sometimes we just gotta have a little fun and not be so serious.

Click to expand...

Definitely NOT! You took yet another tangent that I spoke of in my previous post. LOL!

P.S. The "touch myself" video does not come thru on my computer. Thank God for the small miracles of modern electronics!

 

M

mtncat

Well-known member

Lifetime Membership

Nov 29, 2001

406

151

43

Wyoming

• Mar 14, 2015

• #25

I would like to see the 45 lbs 2.6 track, that would be several pounds lighter than the 155x2.4 that it replaces

 

WingNutRacing

Well-known member

Lifetime Membership

Nov 26, 2000

2,386

451

83

Lolo, MT

• Mar 14, 2015

• #26

so?

Scoot, u gonna cut your 3" down,,,,, you know,,,,,, cause Kieth said????




:light::face-icon-small-win

 

turboless terry

Well-known member

Premium Member

Jan 15, 2008

5,567

6,767

113

Big Timber, MT

• Mar 14, 2015

• #27

mtncat said:

I would like to see the 45 lbs 2.6 track, that would be several pounds lighter than the 155x2.4 that it replaces

Click to expand...

Apparently 3 to 4 lighter than the 2.4.

 

A

ak

Well-known member

Dec 7, 2007

2,776

723

113

• Mar 14, 2015

• #28

mtncat said:

I would like to see the 45 lbs 2.6 track, that would be several pounds lighter than the 155x2.4 that it replaces

Click to expand...

I found a old post by mountain horse that the 5.1 2.4x155 track weighs 46.25 lbs. So will have to wait until fall so somebody can report back for a true weight on a 2.6 track.

 

Scott

Scott Stiegler

Staff member

Lifetime Membership

Nov 1, 1998

69,618

11,737

113

51

W Mont

• Mar 15, 2015

• #29

WingNutRacing said:

Scoot, u gonna cut your 3" down,,,,, you know,,,,,, cause Kieth said????




:light::face-icon-small-win

Click to expand...

Hasn't crossed my mind.

 

cmxuser

Member

Lifetime Membership

Nov 25, 2014

47

15

8

• Mar 16, 2015

• #30

So trying to decide between the 155 or the 163 track in the 2.6 any insights? Not trying to hack this post just trying to make a decision. Thanks

 

S

Spaarky

Well-known member

Oct 5, 2001

3,429

1,345

113

Chester, SD

• Mar 16, 2015

• #31

55 is a little more nimble. 63 has a little more flotation.

I weigh 220 buck naked before breakfast. If I was 20 lbs lighter I would go 155. I have a 63 now. I am amazed how well a 55 floats.

 

Norway

Well-known member

Lifetime Membership

Nov 29, 2007

1,978

476

83

49

• Mar 17, 2015

• #32

cmxuser said:

So trying to decide between the 155 or the 163 track in the 2.6 any insights? Not trying to hack this post just trying to make a decision. Thanks

Click to expand...

Don't know about insight.. But I rode on sunday in pretty much mashed potato spring snow, hero snow you know. So the push in the snow is in the upper range I admit, but the angle!!!!

We played on a hillside field and kept looking at the steep hillside, poking some sidehill lines and just using speed to draw U-turns.

Then I sit there on the sled contemplating the good conditions and wonder... F*** it! I'm trying, and up I went on my 2011 pro with cut down track. That 155" machine was flying up with no wheelie problems whatsoever, demonstrating that a good setup 155" can do some pretty amazing things in that pro chassis.

Now you get that Axys platform...:face-icon-small-coo

Insight? Naah...

 

S

snowmobiler

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2001

8,107

3,922

113

• Mar 17, 2015

• #33

id rather have a 3" push and wheelie over a 2.6 spin,trench and stuck.LOL

 

S

snowmobiler

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2001

8,107

3,922

113

• Mar 17, 2015

• #34

Outlaw Addict said:

I weigh 220 buck naked.

Click to expand...

gramma wants pics.LOL

 

R

RMK935VA

Well-known member

Premium Member

Jan 14, 2008

1,054

431

83

71

• Mar 17, 2015

• #35

I ordered the orange 163" by 2.6" with orange tunnel and orange rails/spindles. I really like the combination and I am hoping it sheds snow better than the bare aluminum as a side benefit. As a former Boise State football player from the early 70s, the orange rocks. No orange/blue combination but our teams occasionally wear the black and orange uniforms these days. It is my favorite uniform out of all of the combinations that they have. I am coming off of a 13 Pro with a 162" by 3" X3 track. I might have ordered a 3" if it had the belt drive. I like the belt drive and I can't see going back to a chain drive for the 3" track. The Axys is about light weight. The 2.6" track and the belt drive are the lightest options. I also have talked to people that have put in time with both tracks on the Axys and they recommended the 2.6 so that is what I did.

 

J

Jaynelson

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2007

5,005

5,542

113

Nelson BC

• Mar 17, 2015

• #36

snowmobiler said:

id rather have a 3" push and wheelie over a 2.6 spin,trench and stuck.LOL

Click to expand...

Within reason, I think the durometer and design actually have as much (or more) to do with trenching than lug length alone.

The current 2.4 *should* be way more of an underdog in the powder, but with the soft durometer, and the suspension design, it seems to be able to provide propulsion, without much trenching. Even tho it spins a lot. Hopefully these new tracks build on that.

 

S

snowmobiler

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2001

8,107

3,922

113

• Mar 17, 2015

• #37

Maybe they bring back attack 20.

 

J

Jaynelson

Well-known member

Nov 26, 2007

5,005

5,542

113

Nelson BC

• Mar 17, 2015

• #38

It actually worked pretty good in the powder given we're talking 10 year old track technology, 2.25" lugs, and 10 year old sleds. I think that was all covered by my "within reason" disclaimer