C
Just wanted to share my thoughts on the ZF snow bike after a quick test ride. I was fortunate to meet and ride with Emo (@zf-us ) last week in Idaho – I’ve never seen a ZF kit, but he let me hop on his Husky 450 / ZF snow bike and try it out for a few minutes.
For comparison, I ride a KTM 450, so the bikes are very similar. I’m riding a gen 1 ARO 3 this season and rode an ARO 120 for the last couple years. Snow conditions are obviously a huge factor: the snow was very bike-friendly that day: about 6” of loose powder under a very stable 5+ ft base (although we had poor visibility all day with light flurries…). Felt like the bikes had traction for days (although one of our buddies with a 3” RIOT still managed to trench…but on a very heavy custom bike).
Per the specs, the ZF appeared to be somewhere between my ARO 120 and ARO 3:
The ZF felt great when cornering; better than my 120. It was fun turning through the trees & curving in the meadows. It felt more like a short track - I couldn’t tell that it’s a longer 127. It didn’t feel like it would tip over in aggressive turns. The ski pressure felt pretty good and the shocks worked pretty well. It had a bit more compression & rebound than what I’m used to - it was fun that day, but it has pros & cons depending on the conditions (I intentionally use a firmer setup with an added fork shock and firmer front track shock on my ARO 3 more for climbing & hard impacts in rugged terrain). I did notice that the wider track and chain idler would occasionally hit the back of my boot, so I had to adjust my position.
As a disclaimer, I did not get to ride the ZF in deep powder on steep slopes, but I’d love to see how it performs. We honestly had great traction during the whole trip with well setup snow, and both bikes could go just about everywhere. From a basic physics perspective, the 1” wider track makes more sense to me than the 0.5” deeper lugs on the ARO 3 (e.g. more surface area / floatation). Another thing I noticed while loading the bikes was that the track angle is different. The attack angle where the front of the track connects to the bike was lower than the ARO & RIOT (which I’d assume is better with more snow contact).
When I hopped back on my ARO 3, it felt slower and more stable compared to the ZF. I definitely notice that I’m lugging around a 129” / 3” track. However, I purchased the ARO 3 for the deep heavily faceted sugar snow in early / mid season where I live. When I just compare the ARO 3 & ARO 120, the ARO 3 is more like a tractor - it’s geared lower and even though it’s heavier and spins slower, it seems to climb great - I definitely have more margin for error in deep powder and trees on steep slopes. I’d have to build up a lot of speed on the 120 to climb what I can on the ARO 3 (which isn’t always possible in tight terrain).
Rider weight, riding style, experience, & snow conditions are all huge factors. I’d usually prefer a short track if riding in heavy snow / spring conditions. I don’t think there’s a perfect “one size fits all” setup, but I think I’d generally prefer the feel of ZF over the ARO 3 in set up snow conditions. My preference in steep & deep sugary snow & harsh terrain is still TBD.
I learned that the price point is very competitive. I got smoking good deals on both my new ARO 120 and used ARO 3, but if I was looking for a new kit, ZF would definitely be in the lineup. The ZF price is similar to MSRP on the ARO 129 (2.5”). I’d love to see a non-biased comparison to the ARO 3 in deep & steep conditions!
Other considerations when evaluating kits: durability, reliability, quality, parts availability / lead time / price, ease of maintenance, installation, manuals, customer service, aftermarket options (wheel kits, fuel cans, cases, ski shock, adjustable track shocks, etc.). I’ve fortunately never had any major issues with Timbersled performance, but I’ve also had to make minor corrections due to poor alignment / quality (some of their design aspects drive me nuts…) and parts are sometimes on backorder from Polaris.
Overall, pretty impressed! It’s great seeing another player in the market (especially with Yeti out). I’d like to hear more user experiences from the ZF riders. Would recommend trying it out if you get the opportunity!
For comparison, I ride a KTM 450, so the bikes are very similar. I’m riding a gen 1 ARO 3 this season and rode an ARO 120 for the last couple years. Snow conditions are obviously a huge factor: the snow was very bike-friendly that day: about 6” of loose powder under a very stable 5+ ft base (although we had poor visibility all day with light flurries…). Felt like the bikes had traction for days (although one of our buddies with a 3” RIOT still managed to trench…but on a very heavy custom bike).
Per the specs, the ZF appeared to be somewhere between my ARO 120 and ARO 3:
- ARO 120: 120” track length, 11.5” track width, 2.5” lugs, 111 lb rear, fixed strut, fixed Fox shocks (no reservoir)
- ZF: 127” track length, 12.5” track width, 2.6” lugs, 113 lb rear, fixed strut (3/8” absorption), fixed Ohlins shocks (w/ reservoir)
- ARO 3 (Gen 1): 129” track, 11.5” track width, 3” lugs, 121 lb rear, fixed strut, adjustable QS3 shocks (firm front / soft rear), added Fox shock to forks (similar to the Trio)
The ZF felt great when cornering; better than my 120. It was fun turning through the trees & curving in the meadows. It felt more like a short track - I couldn’t tell that it’s a longer 127. It didn’t feel like it would tip over in aggressive turns. The ski pressure felt pretty good and the shocks worked pretty well. It had a bit more compression & rebound than what I’m used to - it was fun that day, but it has pros & cons depending on the conditions (I intentionally use a firmer setup with an added fork shock and firmer front track shock on my ARO 3 more for climbing & hard impacts in rugged terrain). I did notice that the wider track and chain idler would occasionally hit the back of my boot, so I had to adjust my position.
As a disclaimer, I did not get to ride the ZF in deep powder on steep slopes, but I’d love to see how it performs. We honestly had great traction during the whole trip with well setup snow, and both bikes could go just about everywhere. From a basic physics perspective, the 1” wider track makes more sense to me than the 0.5” deeper lugs on the ARO 3 (e.g. more surface area / floatation). Another thing I noticed while loading the bikes was that the track angle is different. The attack angle where the front of the track connects to the bike was lower than the ARO & RIOT (which I’d assume is better with more snow contact).
When I hopped back on my ARO 3, it felt slower and more stable compared to the ZF. I definitely notice that I’m lugging around a 129” / 3” track. However, I purchased the ARO 3 for the deep heavily faceted sugar snow in early / mid season where I live. When I just compare the ARO 3 & ARO 120, the ARO 3 is more like a tractor - it’s geared lower and even though it’s heavier and spins slower, it seems to climb great - I definitely have more margin for error in deep powder and trees on steep slopes. I’d have to build up a lot of speed on the 120 to climb what I can on the ARO 3 (which isn’t always possible in tight terrain).
Rider weight, riding style, experience, & snow conditions are all huge factors. I’d usually prefer a short track if riding in heavy snow / spring conditions. I don’t think there’s a perfect “one size fits all” setup, but I think I’d generally prefer the feel of ZF over the ARO 3 in set up snow conditions. My preference in steep & deep sugary snow & harsh terrain is still TBD.
I learned that the price point is very competitive. I got smoking good deals on both my new ARO 120 and used ARO 3, but if I was looking for a new kit, ZF would definitely be in the lineup. The ZF price is similar to MSRP on the ARO 129 (2.5”). I’d love to see a non-biased comparison to the ARO 3 in deep & steep conditions!
Other considerations when evaluating kits: durability, reliability, quality, parts availability / lead time / price, ease of maintenance, installation, manuals, customer service, aftermarket options (wheel kits, fuel cans, cases, ski shock, adjustable track shocks, etc.). I’ve fortunately never had any major issues with Timbersled performance, but I’ve also had to make minor corrections due to poor alignment / quality (some of their design aspects drive me nuts…) and parts are sometimes on backorder from Polaris.
Overall, pretty impressed! It’s great seeing another player in the market (especially with Yeti out). I’d like to hear more user experiences from the ZF riders. Would recommend trying it out if you get the opportunity!
