174” opinion pros and cons

Feb 15, 2009
2
0
1
55
174” opinion pros and cons

Is there any reason not to own a 174” track
Found a great deal on a new one.
Pros and cons. Thank you.
 

Yaeger34

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2015
327
154
43
St cloud mn
Pretty simple, getting unstuck is way harder. Its like a semi in length and good luck whipping it around like a 155. 100% comes down to what you want to do riding and if you are unsure get a 163
 
Jan 4, 2009
54
12
8
sw montana
like the 174 it hooks up great actually get going agin uphill alot depending on situation, as for trees which i ride mostly dont really notice the extra length being a flickable and snappy sled, these modern sleds are awesome
 

Big10inch

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Mar 11, 2018
926
870
93
I am still on a short, for a mtn sled, track 153. I like the maneuverability in the tight technical trees. There are two guys in my group on 174/175 sleds, not big guys either. They are able to keep up just fine. They can also back out of bad situations that have shorter tracks digging in, and they can stop in more precarious spots without getting stuck trying to get going again in deep snow. Yes, they are a little more work when stuck but all of them are work when stuck. I might not go 174 next time but I probably will go longer because as mentioned, the new sleds really hide their length well and getting stuck less is sound better as I age LOL
 

frntflp

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 29, 2007
322
94
28
Plymouth, MN
The thought of less time being stuck is awesome. However, the longer the track, the more it wants to go in one direction - straight. Although with proper sled set up, the extra effort can be minimized.

I would like to think I could resist the urge to ride "on the edge" but at times, I get in to far. Granted, if I'm not pushing myself and trying, I'm not learning. But then I think about how much deeper the trench will be from a longer track, and consequently how much more work to get them out when stuck. (this was definitely true on 163's compared to a 155)

And then there is remembering that just because I have the skill to get up into some place doesn't mean that I have the skill to get back out/or down.

So in the end, I choose to stick with a 155 because it is a physical control that keeps me from getting over my head. And when I get to that same place on my 155, I will be a better rider and [likely] better skilled at getting back out.
 
Nov 26, 2007
1,346
857
113
utah
pros and cons in all things....the balance between the two depends on what is most important to you...this same discussion has taken place everytime there has been an increase in track length, starting back when a 128 was considered long...i've always bought a new sled with the longest track available in the machine i otherwise wanted, never regretted it...i've also put longer tracks on several sleds when the manufacturer didn't make what i wanted, never regretted those tracks either....i presently ride a '16 cat with a 174 and love it, i'm an older rider who doesn't climb chutes but rarely, and i don't get stuck but rarely with my 174....with that said, my new alpha will stay stock as far as track goes, don't think there's any aftermarket for that sled anyway...:juggle:
 

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,214
1,338
113
Parker, CO
Is there any reason not to own a 174” track
Found a great deal on a new one.
Pros and cons. Thank you.
I went from a 163" in 2017 to a 174" in 2018. IMO, its a 50/50 trade off.

Its a lot more significant jump going from a 163" to a 174" than it is a 155" to a 163" .... This is mainly because of the suspension geometry on the Axys 174" .... The 174" doesn't go skis-up near as easily as the other sleds, so this can be a good and bad thing. Its good on big, long, steep hill climbs, but it can be bad when you're trying to bounce through a creek bed or up an embankment .... With that said, the 174" at least IMO is surprisingly nimble for as long as it is when carving and making tight turns in the trees. When you have to turn and go uphill, getting it to whip is more difficult than the shorter sleds as mentioned above .... BUT .... You gain flotation and traction you don't get with the shorter sleds. There were a number of times I was riding through tree wells last season when I was absolutely positive I'd get stuck and the 174 just tractored through it .... Over all, what you give up in maneuverability with the 174 you gain back in traction .... The 174 ABSOLUTELY requires more effort to ride, so IMO if you are a smaller person (Say less than 220-lbs or so) its probably not the sled for you unless all you're doing with it is big climbs.

If I was predominatley riding trees I'd probably have stuck with the 163", but it seems I'm doing more riding on big hills and not as much tight tree work as I used to, and I'm like 290-lbs geared up ready to ride, so for me it made sense to go with the 174" .... Its not for everybody, but for me, the way I've been riding the last few years, it made the most sense.

Pretty simple, getting unstuck is way harder. Its like a semi in length and good luck whipping it around like a 155. 100% comes down to what you want to do riding and if you are unsure get a 163
I agree but after ordering a 174 this season I hope I will get stuck less too?
It isn't any harder to get my 174" unstuck than any other sled I've ever owned. With that said, yes, you will get the 174" stuck less than other sleds. You will still get it stuck though :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2007
1,337
629
113
Elko, NV.
The 174 requires a crapload more effort to yank around that tree you need to avoid, just like a 163 requires a crapload more effort to ride than a 155. If you're riding in a low snow year in an area with a lot of obstacles you can wheelie over the obstacles with a 155, with a 163 you'll likely hit them, and on a 174 you're guaranteed to drill that bump/rock you'd like to carry the ski's over. I've been in several situations where the pilot of the 174 buried his sled if an uphill V-Ditch and it took three guys to get it turned instead of one. I would recommend not sticking a 174 in any snow condition. If your young and strong you may like the 174, if your old and weak you'll be happy to sell it to the first guy offering to take it off your hands. I watched a buddy try to turn his 174 on some hardpack overlain by 3" of fresh, it pushed so bad he had to do a once ski lean it to the side panel power turn to get it aimed the right direction, again, young and strong may like, old and weak you'll wish you had made a different choice.
 
Jan 4, 2009
54
12
8
sw montana
i put at least 2500 mi on a 174 and its great i ride with one arm and 67 yr old, 90 % of time in trees, with body maneuvering and snapping the throttle its works,as for getting stuck wouldnt be without a snow jack
 

FatDogX

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 27, 2008
2,985
1,281
113
ND
The 174 requires a crapload more effort to yank around that tree you need to avoid, just like a 163 requires a crapload more effort to ride than a 155. If you're riding in a low snow year in an area with a lot of obstacles you can wheelie over the obstacles with a 155, with a 163 you'll likely hit them, and on a 174 you're guaranteed to drill that bump/rock you'd like to carry the ski's over. I've been in several situations where the pilot of the 174 buried his sled if an uphill V-Ditch and it took three guys to get it turned instead of one. I would recommend not sticking a 174 in any snow condition. If your young and strong you may like the 174, if your old and weak you'll be happy to sell it to the first guy offering to take it off your hands. I watched a buddy try to turn his 174 on some hardpack overlain by 3" of fresh, it pushed so bad he had to do a once ski lean it to the side panel power turn to get it aimed the right direction, again, young and strong may like, old and weak you'll wish you had made a different choice.

Interesting, as this completely contradicts what most guys say about the 174"??? Too include the post just above me.......

Everything I've heard is that the 174" allows you to slow down and really pick your lines and not carry that extra momentum. Obviously adding to to think and come up with a plan. Extra flotation, tends to equal less stucks but there's not really an exact science there....LOL

You also mentioned the 163, personally don't think the 163" "requires a crap load more effort to ride than a 155" either.n I think in older chassis the there was more of a difference between a 155 and a 163 but on the Axys, I think the 163 is the best of both worlds.

Again, just interesting thoughts.
 

revrider07

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 17, 2008
1,596
546
113
ND
174 less sticks more time to plan but also not fun on the trails. It's just slow but goes and goes. I'm saving the upper up for when I get to old to go west then I will have a fast trail sled. Thinking about when I'm 75. Having rode the t3 174 it's a deep snow tree machine. Have not been on a 174 pol.
 

Jaynelson

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
4,544
4,510
113
Nelson BC
Rode one quite a bit last year and was totally happy with it. On the 800 Axys, the big 174 track does load that motor down a bit... takes a little of the "snap" away and a little fun factor with it. Handling and sidehill characteristics are awesome, and it's a smooth ride. It lets you do things slower and park like a dumbarse (in powder, uphill) without getting stuck as easily. The front end is still light enough to wheelie over things you want to. Great for breaking trail in deep stuff. Steers poorly on hardpack (as expected)...pushes through corners and needs body english to hustle it through corners with any amount of speed on the road. But that's no big deal...all of these newer sleds kinda suck on trails.

The only thing that bugs me a bit on the 174" .... steep (ish) downhill powder carves. The track has a lot of float, and rides high in the snow....this loads the front suspension more on a steeper downhill and puts you on your wrists a little more. Makes it a little harder to rotate to link up turns, as the rear end doesn't "set" as much in to the snow. Probably more of a "thing" for me than most riders....I suspect many wouldn't notice this. Wouldn't order a 174" for me personally (just a 163 kinda guy).....BUT there's nothing wrong with it for deep snow, trees, sidehills, etc.
 

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,214
1,338
113
Parker, CO
Interesting, as this completely contradicts what most guys say about the 174"??? Too include the post just above me.......

Everything I've heard is that the 174" allows you to slow down and really pick your lines and not carry that extra momentum. Obviously adding to to think and come up with a plan. Extra flotation, tends to equal less stucks but there's not really an exact science there....LOL

You also mentioned the 163, personally don't think the 163" "requires a crap load more effort to ride than a 155" either.n I think in older chassis the there was more of a difference between a 155 and a 163 but on the Axys, I think the 163 is the best of both worlds.

Again, just interesting thoughts.
The 174" does tend to be more forgiving in some situations, but its less forgiving in others ... It absolutely 100% requires more rider input to get it to turn and carve than the 163" does. IMO its a 50/50 trade off.
 

FatDogX

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 27, 2008
2,985
1,281
113
ND
The 174" does tend to be more forgiving in some situations, but its less forgiving in others ... It absolutely 100% requires more rider input to get it to turn and carve than the 163" does. IMO its a 50/50 trade off.
I would agree with you on the difference from a 163 to a 174 but as mentioned previously, he was stating the 163 takes a ton more rider input over the 155, which I thought was strange to here. Obviously the 163 will require more input but I don't think requires a "crapload" over the 155?

I guess a guy should just have one of each !!! LOL
 

Matte Murder

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
May 4, 2011
3,511
2,128
113
I wonder if any of the guys who have a strong negative opinion of the 174/175 and strong positive opinion of the 154/155 have ever even ridden a 174/175???
Only place the 174/175(I had both last year) is “worse” is on the road ride in and really tight packed down trails thru the trees and I’ll live with that minor negative for the advantage on the deep, deeper and deepest days.
Btw the Doo 850 175 is way more “nimble” than the 800 174.
 

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,214
1,338
113
Parker, CO
I would agree with you on the difference from a 163 to a 174 but as mentioned previously, he was stating the 163 takes a ton more rider input over the 155, which I thought was strange to here. Obviously the 163 will require more input but I don't think requires a "crapload" over the 155?

I guess a guy should just have one of each !!! LOL
Ohhhhhhhhh ok I guess I misread that. Yes I agree with you .... The 155" to 163" doesn't take near the effort of the jump going from the 163" to the 174" .... Honestly, IMO .... There isn't enough difference in handling (at least for me) to justify the 155" for a tree sled ... but thats also coming from a reasonably in shape 240-lb rider as well.

Going from the 163" to the 174" was a whole awful lot more noticeable.
 
Premium Features