2.6" and belt drive for me. Being I travel to the mountains once a year, we rarely hit those epic storms. Pretty sure I'd still have a blast with the 2.6 if we hit epic fluff.
2.6" track vs 3" track on Pro RMK 163" 850
- Thread starter Beaglemaster
- Start date
For the op. I’m on a Cat, the rest of the crew I ride with is pros/axys and Doo, but im in full agreence with the guy about riding and the snow in Revie, I love 3”. There’s no comparison for those deep days. I haven’t seen durability track issues on my buddies sleds, but we only get 400-600miles on per year. The last 2 seasons, I’ve pulled way more skis that are attached to the 155 2.6”, way more, and 2 of those guys have already ordered 163 3”. But this is for how and where we ride.
Our trails to alpine aren’t very long. Most are 12-17kms, longest are up 45, but we don’t fly down the trail as fast as a sled will go, which helps track and sliders.
It always gets goofy when a guy asks for opinions. It’s like some have to convince you their set up is the only way. The above is for how we ride, and we are all aging. When I trade over to a buddies sled of a shorter version, track speed is way up, feels lighter and nimble, clutching feels explosive, mine feels lazy, except when it gets steep and the snow has no bottom, then what feels light and explosive just runs out of track and you turn out or sidehill, and what feels lazy and heavy settles in and pulls the hill. So it’s up to you. For me and where my riding ability is at, it’ll always be a 160something 3”, only because the hook up I get and the fact my shovel has only come out once in 3 seasons since I made the switch.
Our trails to alpine aren’t very long. Most are 12-17kms, longest are up 45, but we don’t fly down the trail as fast as a sled will go, which helps track and sliders.
It always gets goofy when a guy asks for opinions. It’s like some have to convince you their set up is the only way. The above is for how we ride, and we are all aging. When I trade over to a buddies sled of a shorter version, track speed is way up, feels lighter and nimble, clutching feels explosive, mine feels lazy, except when it gets steep and the snow has no bottom, then what feels light and explosive just runs out of track and you turn out or sidehill, and what feels lazy and heavy settles in and pulls the hill. So it’s up to you. For me and where my riding ability is at, it’ll always be a 160something 3”, only because the hook up I get and the fact my shovel has only come out once in 3 seasons since I made the switch.
N
Missing half of your lugs has nothing to do with clip/vs non clip...
Attached is a picture of what happens when you use a mountain track for its intended use. 1100 miles on this track.
S
never seen so many trashed tracks.must be a poo thing.
So is your sled parked for the season?
LOL, it IS a poo thing.
As for the original question... I think you answered your own question (see bold^^).
You really just have to ask yourself where and how you ride and make the decision based on that. The 2.6 will be “quicker” and feel a little more agile, the 3 inch will be more forgiving and just keep chewing, but at a slightly slower pace and/or feel than the 2.6. As a small, young guy I like my 155x2.6, but I ride a little faster and more aggressive and like re-entrys and such. If I was older and much bigger I would probably go 163” and at that point, you might as well go 3”. It will run hotter on the trail with out scratchers, but there won’t be any temp differences with scratchers down. Durability probably wont be any different unless you are running a lot of trails at high speeds.
I personally like the belt drive on the 2.6, and see the chaincase as the biggest downfall of the 3”. Chaincases are reliable, and just plain work, but so is/does the belt drive. The belt drive is maintenance free, makes track changes super fast, and is just one less thing with fluid. In the rare case that you were to have a failure it makes for a quick fix on the mountain. That said your chaincase will likely never give you problems or need to come open unless your a changing track or driveshaft.
Also, the chaincase has the steel drive shaft !
Don't seem to hear of the drive shaft issues anymore with the aluminum belt drive shafts and the clamps.
They still come with clamps ?
Don't seem to hear of the drive shaft issues anymore with the aluminum belt drive shafts and the clamps.
They still come with clamps ?
They still come with the clamp on the right side. Funny thing is, there isn't that much weight difference.
This past year I had a ‘17 sks 155 with no e start, slp pipe and diamond s can. The sks has the chain case.
Last trip I rode my chain case sks 3 straight days, then switched and rode a good amount of time on the following 3 sleds.
163 axys pro RMK 2.6 belt drive with slp pipe and can.
155 axys silber turbo 155 2.6 belt drive
155 axys stock 155 2.6 belt drive.
On all 3 sleds I could definitely tell the difference in how they were more “flickable” than my chain drive. All 3 sleds were different from each other but took less effort to roll over than my sks. It was so noticeable that I didn’t even consider another chain drive. If the 155 3 inch had a belt drive I would have gotten that.
Chain vs belt drive is definitely something to consider.
Last trip I rode my chain case sks 3 straight days, then switched and rode a good amount of time on the following 3 sleds.
163 axys pro RMK 2.6 belt drive with slp pipe and can.
155 axys silber turbo 155 2.6 belt drive
155 axys stock 155 2.6 belt drive.
On all 3 sleds I could definitely tell the difference in how they were more “flickable” than my chain drive. All 3 sleds were different from each other but took less effort to roll over than my sks. It was so noticeable that I didn’t even consider another chain drive. If the 155 3 inch had a belt drive I would have gotten that.
Chain vs belt drive is definitely something to consider.
Adjust your front track shock spring stiffer and have the same feel.
Mine was much stiffer than theirs I promise you that. Mine was cranked tighter than anyone in our group. I confirmed. Also it was obvious on the trails because sled pushed quite a bit more.
Nope sks is exactly the same skid, chassis, and a arms.
Differences: aluminum over structure (pro is carbon fiber), chain drive, and front tunnel cooler, 2 extra idler wheels,
If bought stock, the sks comes with e start and clicker shocks. I snowchecked mine without estart and took off idler wheels.
Differences: aluminum over structure (pro is carbon fiber), chain drive, and front tunnel cooler, 2 extra idler wheels,
If bought stock, the sks comes with e start and clicker shocks. I snowchecked mine without estart and took off idler wheels.
Do the other sleds have clicker shocks?
Mine has clickers and the rear rear clicker has a big effect on weight transfer.
Also front shock clickers need to be completly loose to match the monotubes.
Last edited:
I was running the front clickers all the way loose or soft on the front and adjust the rear track as needed. The 155 silber and 163 had monotubes, the other 155 had fox floats that were much stiffer than I would prefer
It’s hard to describe until you ride a chain drive all the time and then switch. I realize shocks and set ups are different, but that’s not what I’m trying to describe. I rode these 4 sleds (my chain drive and 3 belt drives) in the exact same conditions. I could tell the difference between all 4 sleds in regard to track length, shocks, and power. The belt drive sleds just felt easier to initiate a side hil and tip side to side.
It’s hard to describe until you ride a chain drive all the time and then switch. I realize shocks and set ups are different, but that’s not what I’m trying to describe. I rode these 4 sleds (my chain drive and 3 belt drives) in the exact same conditions. I could tell the difference between all 4 sleds in regard to track length, shocks, and power. The belt drive sleds just felt easier to initiate a side hil and tip side to side.
Anyone have an exact measurement for the 2.6" lug? I was told it's actually 2.8"??? Any truth to that?
S
I have a 2016 Assault RMK with the chain case drive and off set spindles. I had the same exact results as you when switching between chain vs. belt drive. My sled is a pain in the @ss to tip over side to side and keep on edge. I played with the suspension and never could get it to tip over as easy as the belt drive pros in our group... I also have the front torque arm mounting bolts in the upper hole in the tunnel to match the pros set up exactly. Selling sled because of it!!!
This is my experience as well. The sleds just have a different feel to them.
Curious if you (or anyone else) have any first hand experience comparing the stock belt drive to any of the aftermarket belt drives and stock chain drives as far as what your describing? I ask because I'm hard leaning towards the 3" but cannot stand the thought of the steel drive axle and the chain drive. Thank you
Dan
