OUCH! I guess I would choose being buried by snow rather than ROCKS. Of course I prefer not to be buried AT ALL. Still excersize caution and never say never, the east coast is seeing weather changes like NEVER B-4.
Is narrower really better?
- Thread starter Freeride1
- Start date
OUCH! I guess I would choose being buried by snow rather than ROCKS. Of course I prefer not to be buried AT ALL. Still excersize caution and never say never, the east coast is seeing weather changes like NEVER B-4.
Lets just say there is a COST and a Benefit to every mod done on a sled.
I believe that there is merit to this post and the info in it.
I believe that there is merit to this post and the info in it.
G
Good point and I need to clarify that! The G Man track mod is ONLY for the Doo 16" wide tracks. You basically cut the lugs down to 15 wide but still have a 16 wide belt. Makes a huge difference in the sleds agility. The new 16 wide Camoplast Challenger Extreme tracks are coming stock like this now so it wasn't just me blowing smoke!
Have FUN!
G MAN
I believe, as with anything, there's a balance/sweet spot between too wide and too narrow. I never bought that a narrower front end automatically "improves" a sleds handling. It will make it "tippy-er" to an extent, but as far as holding an edge, handling bumps and changes in throttle, angle, steering, etc while on edge....not going to help much. Those items are where the Pro works better than many other machines. This is due to many other more complicated factors, rather than width of front end.
Think about this...if you like to road race your car, you will want to make some changes that result in less body roll during hard cornering. So you change out springs, shocks, struts, sway/anti-roll bars, tires, etc, for stiffer components to combat body roll. You don't just put wheel spacers on to stick your tires further apart and expect the same results.
That is the equivalent, (IMO), of adjusting the width of the front stance on your sled. You can add or subtract stability to an extent (how easy/hard it is to get on edge), but not simply "make it sidehill better." The "handling," both on and off edge, is more a function of suspension type, geometry, and tuning and how it relates to the contact surfaces.
Whether or not a narrower or wider front end is better? I believe there is a range where it all works just fine, and which one to go with will vary with your riding style(s), weight, and personal preference.....just like all other suspension adjustments. If you are hitting the panels on a regular basis and washing out, I would definetly try a wider setting or arms. That said, I doubt many are doing that as part of their riding day, and even fewer are having it hamper their riding performance.
Side note; it's dangerous to come on the Pro forum this year and just say "I think wider front ends might be better".....within hours you will have guys pillaging the internet in search of front ends so damned wide they won't fit through a garage door LOL
Think about this...if you like to road race your car, you will want to make some changes that result in less body roll during hard cornering. So you change out springs, shocks, struts, sway/anti-roll bars, tires, etc, for stiffer components to combat body roll. You don't just put wheel spacers on to stick your tires further apart and expect the same results.
That is the equivalent, (IMO), of adjusting the width of the front stance on your sled. You can add or subtract stability to an extent (how easy/hard it is to get on edge), but not simply "make it sidehill better." The "handling," both on and off edge, is more a function of suspension type, geometry, and tuning and how it relates to the contact surfaces.
Whether or not a narrower or wider front end is better? I believe there is a range where it all works just fine, and which one to go with will vary with your riding style(s), weight, and personal preference.....just like all other suspension adjustments. If you are hitting the panels on a regular basis and washing out, I would definetly try a wider setting or arms. That said, I doubt many are doing that as part of their riding day, and even fewer are having it hamper their riding performance.
Side note; it's dangerous to come on the Pro forum this year and just say "I think wider front ends might be better".....within hours you will have guys pillaging the internet in search of front ends so damned wide they won't fit through a garage door LOL
Last edited:
F
I agree, you need to have a stiff enough spring rate to keep the suspension from collapsing when on edge. A wider front end that is too soft would be awful. It would get wider and lower and you leaned on the sled effectively fighting you to get to the balance point. I tried that by connection my air shocks on my M7 a few years ago when I saw there was a company making an air bag shock cnversion for summits that connected the left and right ski shocks together allowing one side to push air to the other when you wanted to lean the sled over. That worked terrible. I never even tried it on snow because it made my M7 almost impossible to pull over on concrete. It was like releasing all the air out of the front shocks and trying to side hill. Not easy.
In general stiffer is better on a flat surface but you need the suspension to absorb irregularities so there is some kind of compromise. You can achieve that with or without a sway bar. Steve Darcy is light and hits big drops so he runs no sway bar on his PRO RMK but has so much air in his Evol X's that they work great sidehilling for him. That kid is insane especially considering he is smaller than the average rider and can throw his sled around in the trees like he does.I know I cant hang with him. However Justin Cowett is not as much of a jumper so he was running a stock PRO RMK front end WITH the sway bar. The sway bar allowed the softer springs to not collapse when he was up on one ski. And he is as insane in the trees as anyone gets.
Again I don't have a degree in engineering I just day dream about stuff like this and figured I would share my thoughts.
In general stiffer is better on a flat surface but you need the suspension to absorb irregularities so there is some kind of compromise. You can achieve that with or without a sway bar. Steve Darcy is light and hits big drops so he runs no sway bar on his PRO RMK but has so much air in his Evol X's that they work great sidehilling for him. That kid is insane especially considering he is smaller than the average rider and can throw his sled around in the trees like he does.I know I cant hang with him. However Justin Cowett is not as much of a jumper so he was running a stock PRO RMK front end WITH the sway bar. The sway bar allowed the softer springs to not collapse when he was up on one ski. And he is as insane in the trees as anyone gets.
Again I don't have a degree in engineering I just day dream about stuff like this and figured I would share my thoughts.
F
This is the rock slide ith the impenatrable forest we ride in Northern New Hampshire. It is all we have besides the stump infested skidder cuts to ride. And yes it is Magalloway Mountain, in Pittsburg, NH. I have worried about avalanches too. It is hard to get avalanch training out here though. I hope to get a class on our first trip out west this January.
F
I am running my PRO RMK at full wide. If I was Riding an Assault I would be running full narrow. For me that is a happy mediem for ease of initiation and edge holding ability. I also found I the sled is more forgiving decending with two skis on the snow. It doesn't fall into holes and try to roll on its side. I know you are suppose to be on edge at all times but that isn't always the case when you are bushwacking through some of the stuff we ride.
I am a big guy at 6"1" tall and 260 lbs so I too put my skis at the widest setiing to keep it from bing "tippy" When you weigh as much as I do getting it up onto 1 ski is really easy. Especially since i am coming off of a 2005 King Cat 163" which was a tank!!!
F
This is the rock slide ith the impenatrable forest we ride in Northern New Hampshire. It is all we have besides the stump infested skidder cuts to ride. And yes it is Magalloway Mountain, in Pittsburg, NH. I have worried about avalanches too. It is hard to get avalanch training out here though. I hope to get a class on our first trip out west this January.
I called it! Damn I'm good. And yea, us NH guys need more places to ride.
F
S
Lol! Funny stuff.
5
My conclusion to the original question is yes, narrower than too wide. 550iq
zbros 36" kit here. Will run skis in center position which i believe makes my stance actual 37"
narrow stance isnt for sidehilling. the pro does a great job on sidehills no matter the width 36-42. I want the narrow for carving through trees, tighter control through creek bottoms. Think more like motorbike type control.
Im not going to get into the whole lower bars, higher bars angle crap, but everyone should ride whats comfortable to them for the way they ride.
Side note: Rassmussens new ski doos have all been modified with vertical steering, wider a-arms, narrower running boards... "GASP" :face-icon-small-win
narrow stance isnt for sidehilling. the pro does a great job on sidehills no matter the width 36-42. I want the narrow for carving through trees, tighter control through creek bottoms. Think more like motorbike type control.
Im not going to get into the whole lower bars, higher bars angle crap, but everyone should ride whats comfortable to them for the way they ride.
Side note: Rassmussens new ski doos have all been modified with vertical steering, wider a-arms, narrower running boards... "GASP" :face-icon-small-win
T
This is the rock slide ith the impenatrable forest we ride in Northern New Hampshire. It is all we have besides the stump infested skidder cuts to ride. And yes it is Magalloway Mountain, in Pittsburg, NH. I have worried about avalanches too. It is hard to get avalanch training out here though. I hope to get a class on our first trip out west this January.
Sounds like a challenge to me :bounce:
In my opinion it's all just personal preference. last year I had my Pro at the narrowest setting, I think I'll try my 13 at the middle setting this year. I liked how easy it was to tip over and like Phatty said weave through the trees kinda like a dirt bike, but I've ridden a few assaults and honestly, I don't think its any harder to tip over than a Pro. It's all what you like, so just pick a sled/setting and go with it.
LOL...I was :face-icon-small-win while reading this b/c I actually knew where he was talking about...although I am way too chicken to ride THE BOWL itself...I love getting to it and watcing all the maniacs carve it up.
I have often wondered what all the guys on here who are from out west would think about and how they would handle the bowl b/c of the inherent death to your sled and self if you can't safely scrub off your descent....Would love to know what those guys think vs. where they normally ride out west.
Like most pictures...those do the Bowl NO JUSTICE. If you stand on it in many sections the BOWL itself is in YOUR FACE it's so steep.....and if you hike Magalloway in the summer and find the path over to where you can look down into the middle of it you'd $hit yourself if you saw what you were riding on top of...lol:jaw:
F
I think the West coast guys would do fine on Magalloway Bowl. Unless you just ride meadows, the West coast has plenty of high risk no runout hills. Darcy showed us the right way to ride it when he came home one winter. It was inspiring. We took notes and stepped up our game the best we could.
A couple season back Phatty and Entz were riding HCR's and I couldn't figure out why. Now that I think I have it figured out they are riding narrow sleds again, lol!
A couple season back Phatty and Entz were riding HCR's and I couldn't figure out why. Now that I think I have it figured out they are riding narrow sleds again, lol!
