120 vs 129 maneuverability
- Thread starter Sickness
- Start date
I'm guessing that's why C3 made the 129. It's a nice in between. I prefer the 129 but friends who are a bit heavier like the 137. You don't realize the length as much as you think you would in tree riding. Rode the 146 for a short bit and was surprised how maneuverable it still was and it didn't seem to rob anymore power. Depends in what conditions you ride most in. 129 is still best overall for guy under 190-200 lbs in my opinion!
I ride both
I had a 120 track on my big bore / NOS setup and it offered great maneuverability in the trees and still lots of float for me (was 240 lb back then). Now I've got 129 on my turbo bike and that is a great compromise.
My latest build is back to a big bore with the 120 track. I'm a bit lighter now so figure I'd give the ST another try. After this weekend I'll make a decision whether to keep as 120 or bump it up to 129.
I had a 120 track on my big bore / NOS setup and it offered great maneuverability in the trees and still lots of float for me (was 240 lb back then). Now I've got 129 on my turbo bike and that is a great compromise.
My latest build is back to a big bore with the 120 track. I'm a bit lighter now so figure I'd give the ST another try. After this weekend I'll make a decision whether to keep as 120 or bump it up to 129.
traction and floatation
Now that 2.5 inch tracks are available in short lengths, I am wondering how the riders with these more traction shorter length tracks are working out.
When I built my first couple of bikes I wanted maximum traction and 136 and 141 lengths seemed to be the answer. Now I am looking at something shorter in length with the bigger lugs.
So reviews on that ??
Now that 2.5 inch tracks are available in short lengths, I am wondering how the riders with these more traction shorter length tracks are working out.
When I built my first couple of bikes I wanted maximum traction and 136 and 141 lengths seemed to be the answer. Now I am looking at something shorter in length with the bigger lugs.
So reviews on that ??
The 137 has always been king in the deep fluffy early/mid season snow around us in SW montana. The 120's worked well but really left a lot on the table when it got deep out. The hard part was from Mid winter to spring/summer when the snow has a better base and there is more traction/ hard snow days the 137 became a bit cumbersome and took the fun out of riding the bikes when jumping around and traction was no longer an issue. For the powder snob who only rode deep days this was no issue, but we find ourselves on the snow from NOV to JUL when possible. The reality of our rides is more are less then ideal days where the 120 rules for agility/fun factor.
With the new 2.5" tracks we are seeing 120's going some impressive places even with 200# riders on them in deep snow. The 129 is a cool compromise, unfortunately its only available in the yeti track which is a killer deep snow setup but the rubber is a bit too soft for our liking in crusty or spring type conditions.
The radius'd 2.5" tracks have also greatly increased the fun factor of the bikes making the cornering and overall feel of the setups a LOT more fun from the trailhead to the top of the mountain.
Our whole staff is on 2016 Timbersled ST kits with TSS and have been loving them all season so far and as the base stacks up we are loving them that much more
With the new 2.5" tracks we are seeing 120's going some impressive places even with 200# riders on them in deep snow. The 129 is a cool compromise, unfortunately its only available in the yeti track which is a killer deep snow setup but the rubber is a bit too soft for our liking in crusty or spring type conditions.
The radius'd 2.5" tracks have also greatly increased the fun factor of the bikes making the cornering and overall feel of the setups a LOT more fun from the trailhead to the top of the mountain.
Our whole staff is on 2016 Timbersled ST kits with TSS and have been loving them all season so far and as the base stacks up we are loving them that much more
What bikes are your staff running the ST kits on??? I have mine on a 2014 Husaberg FE350 and the climbing ability of it versus the LT on a buddies 2014 KTM 450XCF is significant. I am wondering if its more to do with the bike than the ST vs LT.....
I have owned a 120 TS 129 Yeti track and 137 TS. If u can ride its not much different. Priorities are personal preference.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I had a 2015 TimberSled ST last year and loved it, but after trying a 2016 TimberSled LT TSS I made the switch. I hadn't rode a LT before, so my guess is the TSS and Curved track great improved the hard pack handling performance. So far for me the Long track is the way to go. It is easier on the bike too.
short
I still prefer the ST even on my rotax 600 bike. It is definatly noticable in the soft snow and want to do quick **** hooks. my RMZ and rotax bikes both push the front end more with the LT on. Now the yeti ski does hold in the powder better but still feel the extra swing out back.
Im not 100% sure but think im going back to 120 on rotax but need another good few days of powder riding with the LT on it to make decision.
I still prefer the ST even on my rotax 600 bike. It is definatly noticable in the soft snow and want to do quick **** hooks. my RMZ and rotax bikes both push the front end more with the LT on. Now the yeti ski does hold in the powder better but still feel the extra swing out back.
Im not 100% sure but think im going back to 120 on rotax but need another good few days of powder riding with the LT on it to make decision.
Gary, I think I would prefer your 600 rotax bike with any track. That being said are you comparing 2016 ST to the 2016 LT? I haven't noticed any push yet.
What I have notice is my 2016 TimberSled LT doesn't pick up the snow and lube the Hyfax as well as my 2015 TimberSled ST. I'm going to put ice scratchers on.
2014 KTM XCF 450
2015 KTM XCF 450
2014 Yamaha YZ450F
The 350's do well, but nothing beats raw power. Your down on power and track length, neither one is a killer, but together its going to make for a measurable difference in performance.
I think a 2016 450XCF will be in my future......I was thinking the 2016 350XCF since it is putting out 58hp and it has a 6spd tranny......thought the 6th gear might be nice on the "trail" to and from the off trail spots.....but maybe it comes down to still not having enough power.
The 6spd would be sweet but with more power on top then anyone along with more grunt, the 16 XCF 450 seems like a hard bike to pass up. I like the idea of the 350 with all the power they make, but if your gonna drop that kind of coin I have a hard understanding not just pulling the trigger on the best option.
J
jskattum606
Well-known member
I rode a 350 a while ago and they are sweet! Love the extra rpm range they have. It really makes for a great bike. Not gonna get the high mark every time but they are a really fun bike! I rode one with an SX kit think it was a 13 bike
H
Hunters Recreational Products
Active member
The advantage of the 350 comes in the summer time, they are much easier to ride in the woods and single track, and they're light. All depends on priorities. Year round the new 350 should do well. I think snowest (?) built one as a Timbersled this year. I'm curious to read reviews on it. If the 1st priority is snow biking, I think it will be hard to beat a new 450xcf.
sum testing
the last couple of weeks riding a variety of track lengths and brands and bikes, I will stay with some length of LT. I found more difference in handling / push/ traction in the setup and kit brand, than the length of 2.5 tracks. I will say the 2.5 short tract is a good stepup from the early 121 ``1.5 we started with..
the last couple of weeks riding a variety of track lengths and brands and bikes, I will stay with some length of LT. I found more difference in handling / push/ traction in the setup and kit brand, than the length of 2.5 tracks. I will say the 2.5 short tract is a good stepup from the early 121 ``1.5 we started with..
