Track speed vs. track length

[Dizzle]

Hey fellas I am doing as much research as I can before buying a sled and this is one of several questions I have. I have talked with John JR. at MT Hood Polaris about track speed and what his thoughts were, he said that I would out-climb him on a 46' and him on a 55'. I am 5'9 and a little over 200 but need to drop about 20 pounds. I saw somewhere that Burandt was building a 55' sled for this year rather than a 63', you guys that have ridden both lengths(specifically the Pro), can you tell much difference between the two?

Does a shorter track automatically mean trenching? I'm going to ride in OR. 90% of the time and we do have some trail riding to get to the good areas. With that in mind, I have been looking at the SB Assault with the 2" RMK track, and 146' Summit, or maybe the XF High Country. I love powder and hill climbing, as well as tree riding, but I'm not gonna blow smoke and say that I'm an advanced rider. I have allot to catch up on...my last sled was a 92' Indy 500 haha. My cousin insists that I get a Pro 163 and be done with it, but he lives in Cascade/McCall where it gets quite a bit deeper than what we get. If I did decide to go with a Pro 155, will the trail riding prematurely flatten the track? Last time I rode McCall I rode a 63' Dragon and a 55' RMK(IQ) the same weekend and that Dragon felt like a school bus behind me, I couldn't get that thing to lean for the life of me. The 55' RMK was MUCH more comfortable for myself.

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I couldn't find this topic in the search engine. :beer:

 

[turboless terry]

It all depends on how you ride. A 155 is a really good all around track. They are easier to manuever in tighter stuff and seem more playful. They are not trenchers. If you are trenching you have a skid set up problem. If you like to jump, shorter is better. I am not going to get into the 163 because it sounds like you already don't really care for them. Do not buy into the story that if you don't have a 163 you won't be able to go there. I pull 163"s out all the time. A pro 155 is an awesome sled.

 

[Dizzle]

Yeah a 163 doesn't interest me at all. I think the key word(s) you said is "all around," that is probably the best way to describe what I am looking for. I am going to jump, but am I gonna do cliff drops? No. And am I gonna be tree riding on steep sidehills in chest deep powder? No. I just keep thinking about how much of a difference I personally felt from the 63 to 55, that if a 46 would be even that much easier. I'd love to demo but never received an email back from the dealer about a demo ride.

Thanks for the insight boss

 

[n2otoofast4u]

I 100% agree the 154/155 market is the best all around. I got off a 163XM and directly onto a 154XM last weekend and I actually enjoyed the 154 more. If your not into crazy high marking or interested in shoving a bunch of power into it I think the 155 is a perfect fit. Im from Oregon also, IMO Id steer clear of any of the shorter lug, less of a mountain machine. You will be disapointed in the end.

 

[2012ProRMK800]

Im a 155' guy. Easier to maneuver through tight trees, you can carve tighter, and they take up less space in the trailer. I do believe that a 163 will climb a couple feet higher, but nothing really worth it in my opinion.

 

[Ed Fast]

sled

146x16 makes you work the sled and learn to ride it. funner on the average day and rips in the trees. 163 is a point and shoot type set up for most riders. I know there are people who jump them but average.

 

[dcooper]

I got a 163 this year, ill be going back to 155 next year.

 

[snowhunter87]

155

I have a 155" 2012 Pro and I ride with 9 163" 2013 ProRMk's and I love it because I'm like the annoying kid that they cant get rid of. So far in two years there have been three hills that I couldn't get over on my sled that a 163 did ahead of me. Granted, I've been riding since I was 3 years old and you have to do some gnarly sidehilling when the momentum stops, but I love my 155, there are many instances where I will make a track through steep tight trees and I never have a 163 follow because it's like you said, they are all pulling trailers, no fun when manuvering the parking lot at walmart with your 40' enclosed behind your truck right? haha, so I'd say 155 all the way, learn to ride that and keep up with the long tracks and you'll become a hell of a rider quickly.

 

[Jaynelson]

I've got a 163 and have ridden a 155 pro. I wouldn't say there's a huge difference, so if your preference is for the shorter track I would go there and not think twice. If you want to ride mountains for real....forget about any hybrid 2" track thing.

The 55 and 63 will go the same places...the 163 just let's you do things at a slower pace if you like. The 155 won't push quite as much on hard pack. You can't turn one any tighter than another and if anything the longer track is easier to manage "in the trees" because you can slow things down a bit, have more control, and lessen chances of screwing up. Depends on your preferences. Also weight IMO....I'm 210 + gear and can't imagine my 63 has much advantage over a 55 with a 170lb rider. Again, not huge differences; you are talking about a 4" longer sled.

My 2011 has the tipped up rails which I always thought was a good compromise, but they've done away with that.

 

[Himark]

**optimum modified dialed in sleds**

A 155 turning 50 plus mph -vs 163 turning 46 mph???? Hmmmmm My money for climbing is on the 155. Pure azz climbing ripping you just cant beat track speed with in reason. (not a 121 vs whatever)


A 155 in 4 foot of fluff driving through the trees-Vs- 163.... My money is on the long tracker.


I have heard that once a track reaches speeds above 70 it is less "traction" and more "purpolsion". I believe that is true! So build a sled that is 174" that can run very responsive at low R's and reliable then crack that thing open on the hills and get 70 MPH track speed. You would have the BEST thing going! But no matter what peeps say you give up one world for the other. JMO

 

[bholmlate]

I think it all comes down to where you ride, riding style and the average type of snow you will be riding it in. IMO a 4" longer track on the ground doesnt make a huge difference to the handling of a sled if the track suspension is set up correctly for you. It sounds like you may have ridden two completely different suspesion setups and the shorter track was setup better for your riding style. As stated previously a 155 is a great size for all around mountain sled and i am sure you will be very happy with it. If you are a little heavier rider I would go with a longer track to give you a little more weight distribution over the track. If you plan on boosting it I would go longer track so you can more efficietly use the added HP. If you are just looking for a solid all around mountain sled that will get you to most places you want to go a 155 will work just fine.

 

[Dizzle]

I appreciate the input fellas. I was almost dead-set on the SB Assault with the RMK track but you all have steered me clear of that. I grew up riding, from diapers till I was 16 and then my parents got rid of them. I don't think it will take me long to get back into the groove of things, so with that in mind, and your guys' comments in here, I'm gonna stick with the 2.5 and 15X track. Thanks again!!

 

[The Fourth Wolf]

Crossover sleds are to mountain riding what AWD sedans are to off-roading.

Get a mountain sled in whatever track length makes you happy. Forget trail performance. Trails are penance. Any trail that does not take you to the hills is wasting your gas.

 

[poorider]

Any trail that does not take you to the hills is wasting your gas.

And a huge AMEN to that, brother!

This is the first time I've ever seen one of these track length threads favor so heavily on the 155" track spectrum. Usually a bunch of guys will get on here and tell you about how they put 174s on their rides and they will never go back to a "shortrack" again blah blah.
I had an'07 155. It worked great but I thought I needed more track so I got an '08 163. Man I tell you I could feel that extra track dragging behind me slowing me down all day. I don't care if it's only 4" longer on the ground, for a lighter guy (Im 175 nekkid) you can feel the extra length. I've gone back to the 155 length now , and it's the best or me. Yep, you can w.o.t. straight up climb like 20' higher with the bigger track, but who cares? 155 is more fun for me all around.
Much over 200lbs I'd probably be singing a different tune, especially because these pros are retardedly easy to ride in all track lengths.

 

[Rixster]

I guess it all depends on where you live and what the snow is like. Living in Utah I wouldn't dream of going shorter then 162. Of course the snow we get here is very dry and fluffy.

 

[poorider]

I guess it all depends on where you live and what the snow is like. Living in Utah I wouldn't dream of going shorter then 162. Of course the snow we get here is very dry and fluffy.

I've heard that one a lot too but I just don't buy it. I live in B.C.. Pretty sure we get deep snow here. I ride everywhere from the northern rockies to the coastals to Stewart (deepest snow in the country sometimes) and I still prefer the 155. Rarely would I ask for more track, but that's just me

 

[Dam Dave]

I guess it all depends on where you live and what the snow is like. Living in Utah I wouldn't dream of going shorter then 162. Of course the snow we get here is very dry and fluffy.

Lived in Utah for years until this winter, rode 162s until last year when I got a 153 Pro Climb...................I will probably never go back to a 162, 153 will go anywhere the 162 goes and most of the time easier

most winters I travel around and ride Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho and Montana.........I had no problems with the 153 in any of that DEEP snow..................I bought another 153 this year and they are just more fun

Track speed rules

 

[volcano buster]

gcmci is demo'ing some 155 Pros at Ray Benson this weekend. See his post in the Oregon section. Hit him up and pick his brain. Good guy.

 

[snowmanx]

!

I've always been sceptical of longer tracks since I first did an upgrade from a 136"-144" about 15 years ago!.... Then to 151, 159, 162, and finally, on my Tnytro, a 174(also a 16" wide on all of them), and I've never regretted going longer once,

I know many disagree, but I think the effects on handling and agility are neglegible, but with the longer track it allows you to go higher tighter, deeper spots that you might get stuck in with a shorter track.

I'd go 163"

But all that being said, the 155" would be a great sled too. I had a XP 154 and loved it. Good luck Lol

 

[AdrenalineAddict]

As far as track speed goes the 155" will spin the track 1 MPH more than the 163". We consistently see 37 MPH during a tough deep climb with the 155" and 36 MPH with the 163". The 155" will run across a lake 1 MPH faster than a 163". With the extra length and slightly slower track speed they climb very similar.