06 track on xps

[Insaneboltrounder/sjohns]

Ive heard some ppl are having great luck using the old 06 2.3x16x162 track. They have had 2.52 drivers made to fit the xp axle. Supposed to be the best working track so far..... better than the 2.5? Hmmmmmmmmm. sj

 

[evandaigneault]

it wont fit the XP axle. That is a 2.86 pitch. If you mean putting it on an 07 XRS, that would work. I just put one on my 07 Summit X 159 and its way better than the old track.

The 06 paddle design is the same paddle design they use now on the XP tracks. just the 2.52 pitch instead of the 2.86 pitch.

Evan

 

[sledhead_24_7]

By putting on the older 2.52 pitch tracks you end up with more paddles on the ground and also softer paddle durometers and faster track speeds.

Example 155 2.86 (polaris for easy math 2 paddles per bar) pitch only has 108 paddles on the track with 54 on the ground.

155"/2.86=54.1958042 (bars) * 2 ( paddles)=108.3916084 paddles on the track.

Now the 151 2.52 pitch track

151"/2.52=59.92063492 (bars) * 2 (paddles)=119.8412698 paddles on the track. which puts 59.92063492 paddles on the ground.

That is a benefit of 6 more paddles than the longer 155" track.

According to camoplast the farther apart the pitch spacing the stiffer the durometer the rubber needs to be to keep from folding over.

Also from camoplast a 3.0" pitch track is slower track speed than a 2.86" which is slower than the 2.52" track.

We all wanted light wight, which we got, but now most of us have been suffering the performance loss of the 2.86" pitch track. Sweet deal

The longer you go in the 2.52" pitch the more substantial the gains.

As far as drivers go all you need to do is call Avid products they build the 2.52 pitch drivers that fit the new XP drive shaft.

We have done this 2 years in a row and most people can not keep up unless they are on the juice. It works waaaaayyy good

 

[sledhead_24_7]

I forgot to mention that those of us that have done this are seeing on average 5-10 mph faster track speed and also faster ground speed.

Also lots less trenching. which is always a good thing.

 

[1Mike900]

Sledhead, Is what you are saying is eventhough the track is heavier there is less rolling resistance in the softer rubber compound? I have a 2.52 track on mine, I was going to switch to a 3.0 pitch. I have tremendous track speed right now, I was hoping for more with the 3.0, But I guess not! I read this somewhere else but cannot remember where it was? I guess I will look for a 156 x 2"+ track if made? I think I read this on tracks USA?

Thanks Mike

 

[Insaneboltrounder/sjohns]

Sounds like you have seen the older 2.52 pitch x 2.3 out perform the 3 pitch x 2.5 extreme? Just verifying. thnx sj

 

[sledhead_24_7]

Sledhead, Is what you are saying is eventhough the track is heavier there is less rolling resistance in the softer rubber compound? I have a 2.52 track on mine, I was going to switch to a 3.0 pitch. I have tremendous track speed right now, I was hoping for more with the 3.0, But I guess not! I read this somewhere else but cannot remember where it was? I guess I will look for a 156 x 2"+ track if made? I think I read this on tracks USA?

Thanks Mike

What track length do you currenlty have? I would just go longer in the 2.52 pitch. Even possibley switch to the polaris for the 166 series 4 2.4" track. You WILL NOT REGERT IT!!!!

The track speed info came straight from Camoplast, and first hand experiance.

 

[sledhead_24_7]

Sounds like you have seen the older 2.52 pitch x 2.3 out perform the 3 pitch x 2.5 extreme? Just verifying. thnx sj

I have not seen the 3" pitch x 2.5" extreme. I have heard that the extreme works really well in harder more compact snow. But We have lots and lots of dry fluffy bottomless powder here in Jackson Wy most of the winter. Thus the reason why softer durometer tracks work better.

I have also got a friend with a 09 m1000 that never even roe the new powder claw track, just switched it right out for the
polaris series 4 2.4" x 166" track. He only has a hps can and can beat a similarly set up m1000 162" powder claw. So hows that, really makes you wonder huh.

 

[1Mike900]

! presently have a 151x2" and would like longer and not loose too much track speed? I would like a taller paddle 2.25 to 2.5 max. I forgot about the older Polaris tracks. I am set up for a 156 but I only see 2" versions of these besides the 2.5 extreme. I wish they would put on aluminum clips, I know how it can be done but need to mill out 130 of them. So are the 2.52 tracks softer than 80 durometer like the Powerclaws?

Thanks
Mike

 

[sledhead_24_7]

! presently have a 151x2" and would like longer and not loose too much track speed? I would like a taller paddle 2.25 to 2.5 max. I forgot about the older Polaris tracks. I am set up for a 156 but I only see 2" versions of these besides the 2.5 extreme. I wish they would put on aluminum clips, I know how it can be done but need to mill out 130 of them. So are the 2.52 tracks softer than 80 durometer like the Powerclaws?

Thanks
Mike

As a rule yes, because of the closer paddle spacing, not as much stress. You should not lose any track speed from the 152 to the 159 and what little you miiiiight lose wont matter.

Put on the polaris series 4 2.4" 159 track. But you can only buy that one from a polaris dealer. The 2.4" version is not available from tracks usa only polaris. The series 4 2.4" is a split durometer stiffer at the base and the top 3/4" of an inch or so is softer close to 75 or 70 durometer.

Don't worry about the clips you don't need them all. if you are worried ut on some ice scratchers. But I have ran one of these sereis 4 2.4" track for 3 years now and no problems. 07 it was a 159 x 2.4" 08 and 09 have both been 2.4" x 166" tracks.

 

[1Mike900]

A 159 I can probably do, With the 8" rears I have full adjustment left and am set up for a 2.25" set back with existing holes. This may be just the ticket after drymoly coating the clips, I think this thing will spin! Thankyou for the heads up. Oh, I do have custom made cable ice scratchers, My own lightweight design!

Mike

 

[sledhead_24_7]

Sounds good. As far as the every third window being closed off on the polaris track, use a 1 1/2" hole saw works just right for the extrovert drivers on the skidoos.

This set up on my 07 summit x was unreal. was beating 162s a lot and anything with a camoplast challenger or attack 20 159 good luck.

 

[TLKDPROD]

Track speed VS Real "travelling" speed

Sledhead, got a question for you :

Track speed might be one thing but the actual speed that you're "travelling" in the deep stuff has to be something else. Even if the 3" pitch by 2.5 track has slower track speed than 2.86 and 2.52, it will probably get you going faster in the super deep (let's say more than 24"). Right or wrong ?

Let's put it this way : I think I can get faster than you all track speed with a Ripsaw 1.25 track... but it won't get me really far in the deep snow.

I'm just trying to find out why Camoplast would come out with a new product that wouldn't be better than the old stuff... I think the "shoveling capacity" has to be greatly increased with the new 2.5" or 3" paddled tracks. But that, of course, puts more load on the clutch/motor... Are the tracks meant to be used with BIIIG HP sleds... Do you need to have more than 175 horses under the hood to properly spin these tracks and really see the benefits ?

 

[winter brew]

Sledhead, got a question for you :

Track speed might be one thing but the actual speed that you're "travelling" in the deep stuff has to be something else. Even if the 3" pitch by 2.5 track has slower track speed than 2.86 and 2.52, it will probably get you going faster in the super deep (let's say more than 24"). Right or wrong ?

Let's put it this way : I think I can get faster than you all track speed with a Ripsaw 1.25 track... but it won't get me really far in the deep snow.

I'm just trying to find out why Camoplast would come out with a new product that wouldn't be better than the old stuff... I think the "shoveling capacity" has to be greatly increased with the new 2.5" or 3" paddled tracks. But that, of course, puts more load on the clutch/motor... Are the tracks meant to be used with BIIIG HP sleds... Do you need to have more than 175 horses under the hood to properly spin these tracks and really see the benefits ?

We had 2 almost identical XP's....one with stock 163, other had 174-16-2.5. 163 spinning in the mid 40's mph on a climb, the 174 spinning about 40 mph. Side by side the 174 would pull pretty hard from the 163 (real speed) and go significantly higher on the hill.....it's a combination of track speed and traction.

 

[sledhauler07]

All this makes me happy... I think. I have been kicking around getting an XP or staying with my 06 REV 151 X. My "budget" plan included trying to get a 154 track from the new sleds to replace my 151. I know that would require new drivers...


But sounds like I would be better off to get a 159 that came in 06 and with my drop bracket and big 2 wheel off-set kit (already on) just replace the track I have. Is that about right? I like the 16" wide versus the Pol track although I know that track (POL) has a great rep and the 166 guy that I ride with goes anywhere he wants most of the time...

So what do you really smart guys think? is that doo-able? haha wonder how much that would cost to get the 159 and from where? thoughts?

thanks.

 

[ledoo]

tracks usa or tracks canada part # 9941

 

[sledhauler07]

right on and thanks. on another thread they were talking about rails... think I can keep the 151s with the big wheel ( I can drop down and back 1" on front mount) or should I get a set of ice age 159s...

speaking of that, not to high jack the thread, but I was thinking about trying a different rear end. any of you guys know about better than stock options that own or have actually ridden?

thanks again.

 

[Dootimes2]

I have not seen the 3" pitch x 2.5" extreme. I have heard that the extreme works really well in harder more compact snow. But We have lots and lots of dry fluffy bottomless powder here in Jackson Wy most of the winter. Thus the reason why softer durometer tracks work better.I have also got a friend with a 09 m1000 that never even roe the new powder claw track, just switched it right out for the polaris series 4 2.4" x 166" track. He only has a hps can and can beat a similarly set up m1000 162" powder claw. So hows that, really makes you wonder huh.

Have 2 07 rev's. One with a 162x2.5 camo extreme and other with 174x2.5 camo extreme. The 162 will out climb a 09 rev with a 163 every time. 07 is heavier and the track is stiffer ( according to you and camoplast ) than the 2.86 pitch 163 yet it performs better. Makes you wonder also doesn't it. Oh by the way the 174 out performs the 162 every time and here in northern Mt. we also ride alot of deep fluff ( especially early season ). The deeper the snow the bigger advantage the 2.5 has ( until a camo extreme 3" shows up and kicks butt )

 

[sledhead_24_7]

Sledhead, got a question for you :

Track speed might be one thing but the actual speed that you're "travelling" in the deep stuff has to be something else. Even if the 3" pitch by 2.5 track has slower track speed than 2.86 and 2.52, it will probably get you going faster in the super deep (let's say more than 24"). Right or wrong ?

Let's put it this way : I think I can get faster than you all track speed with a Ripsaw 1.25 track... but it won't get me really far in the deep snow.

I'm just trying to find out why Camoplast would come out with a new product that wouldn't be better than the old stuff... I think the "shoveling capacity" has to be greatly increased with the new 2.5" or 3" paddled tracks. But that, of course, puts more load on the clutch/motor... Are the tracks meant to be used with BIIIG HP sleds... Do you need to have more than 175 horses under the hood to properly spin these tracks and really see the benefits ?

Remember that ground speeds and track speeds will vary some due to different snow conditions. Wet heavier snow or super dry fluffy stuff or some place in between. Plus everone is concerned about light weight.

Stiffer lug tracks tends to trench more than softer lugs tracks in the fluffy snow, yet the stiffer lugs will out perform in the wetter heavier snow.

I don't believe that you absolutely need huge hp to turn the bigger tracks. You will still perform better than your buddy if all you have is a longer track and good clutching. As far as losing track speed with longer tracks I have not seen where you lose that much if any as long as you get your clutching working right.