146" x 2.5" track on a 137" kit

[Jon Mutiger]

Has anyone tried putting rail extensions on a Mountain Horse, and using a deeper lug track?

There is a 146" x 2.5" track I have access to, and I was wondering if it'll clear everything? What rails do the timbersled rails mimic shape wise for a bolt on rail extension?

Thanks,

Jon

ps. Yes I'm crazy for wanting more track, but more is better than less.. Right?

 

[Rush44]

You can buy rail extensions. If you do a search on the forums you'll see some WPS rail extensions that retired motoman and his crew has used and they work well. No problems to report.

However, when cutting down the track you lose some flex on the sides of the track since the fiberglass will carry all the way out to the outer edge. That was one of the main reasons that Timbersled acquired some custom made tracks and stopped cutting Camoplast Challenger tracks down in 2013. The outer edges on the custom track flex better and give you more of that tire feel in the back rather than the edge to edge of the older track. Another reason for the upgrade to the 2.86 driver custom track is that the lugs went from 1.75 to 2 inches with the base of the lug being stiffer while also having a more flexible tip. Also with the 2.86 driver track the lugs are spaced a little further apart.

I was looking into buying a Challenger from Tracks USA and having them make me some custom rail extensions. But after talking with Allen about it and weighing the pros/cons I decided to just get the real deal and not cut down a track. With the flex of the new track and the added flex arm on the front suspension it really improves the handling of the kit.

 

[CATSLEDMAN1]

chug a lug

so far riding my sno bikes leads me to believe that the deeper the lug the better, if you can't vicously spin a track, then go big lug and tractor around.

Well any way that's my story so I built my new bike with lots of track clearance. for now a 2" track, looking for some thing bigger in a 136 or there abouts. Hope to mount up something with big lugs before the end of the year.

 

[Jon Mutiger]

Rush, I'm already on a 137 LT.. And I've got a torn lug.. So I'm not sure if I should replace the stocker, which I believe is a 2.0 not a 2.3" lug.. If I replaced it I've already got the 2.86 pitch drivers as I have a LT, and they are all 2.86 pitch.. So Basically it comes down to track selection. And in reality there aren't that many tracks to choose from.

I agree with Catsledman, more track is better. Getting stuck sucks, and I think an even longer track would get stuck less and go more places. I need something to help me keep up to the fleet of turbo's I'll be riding with.

So, is the LT a 2.0 lug or a 2.3? Don't make me get off my chair and measure, I'm comfy

Jon

 

[Rush44]

Got my wires crossed. When I was talking with Allen about the new snowbike tracks we were talking about a cut down sled track that is also 2.34 on the 2.86 pitch. The TS track is a true 2 incher. Sorry!

Nick (WheelHouseMotorsports) had a custom built snowbike with a 155 under it. I believe he said that the thing pushed like crazy unless you were on the power pretty hard. I'm sure the float was great but the handling might have left something to be desired. Shoot him a PM and ask.

Looks like you could fit a 3" under there (1.75 installed currently).

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

haha, i just so happened to see this, so let me chime in.,

I did a 151x12.5x 2" bike kit last year. I should have saved my time and turned that track directly into mud flaps instead of wasting time with it. It barely went any higher than a 121 kit and was absoultely NOT fun to ride. deeper lug seems to work good, but the length was killer. IMO, i want my bike to feel like a bike, if the snow is deep, ill take a sled out, so i would rather the bike be smaller and more nimble.

 

[Hawkster]

Turn the rails extensions up , when on had pack you'll still have the smaller foot print and in the deep it helps transfer weight which would complement the suspension as long as you have the power .

 

[mountainhorse]

Are you comparing the characteristics of a Hawk to a Bike with the TS kit??

Apples and oranges IMO.




.

 

[carbondaddy]

I've also thought seriously of using a cut down 146" 2.3 track. I was going to turn up the rail extensions a bit and also taper the outer paddles down to about 1.75". This will go on a turbo'd bike and, living in Revy, ride some pretty deep pow most of the year. When the snow firms up, it'll only take an hour to change back to a shorter track. If anybody knows of a track near Revelstoke, let me know

 

[Jon Mutiger]

If you were going to go to a 146" track like I'm considering, why not the 2.5"? Seems to me like the logical one to get. I measured it out, and talked to a few people.. Basically either the 15" or 16" track could be cut down to fit, and cutting it is messy but not much more than that.. It would be nice to have more lug for sure.

Jon

 

[CATSLEDMAN1]

same old same old

most of us have been through this same discussion and experimentation on the sleds.

Day was.........none of the big dogs would touch anything over a 136 because they pushed and didn't go any place a 121 wouldn'd go.

then the magic number was 144........long as any " good sledder will ever go ".

Issue was just longer tracks on 121" track chassis. We are simply there now on the bikes...........long tracks going on 121 designs. So the first guys to figure out the long tracks will kick every body else's butttt.

so, I'm like a lot of tinkerer's........... trying to see what can work, different rail and suspension, adjustable link, different approach angle on track, just trying to find the sweet spots and expand on them. One thing I have learned in motor sports, never believe rumors speculation and paranoia. Build it, check it out, discard it and go on, always lots of wrong turns, but those little doses of nirvana keep you building.

 

[Crash&Burn]

141 LT

Ran a 141 for the previous 2 years. It does better in the deep than the 121 and has bailed me out a few times. The short is typically better in the spring time. Make sure to kick the extentions up as it helps on the packed trail, I kicked the weel up almost 3 in. A longer track will alwas push and want to go straightforward more than a short track. The 2 problems i had where going to anti ratchet drivers - had to trim the front of the rails back a little and re-shape the plastic covers (3" windows where a pain on the track I used do to the drivers). The other problem i had with the 2 1/4 paddles where they rubbed on the chain (new sprockets and chain will help some on this issue - getting my miles worth out of the equipment lol. The drivers played a roll here as well). The more you tighten up the chain, the closer it is to th track. I have a very small window cut out of my track where the chain rides to make sure it does not hit and bother me. I do like my 141 track set up but remember everything has positive and negative points. It does not take long to swap back and forth when you want though.

 

[carbondaddy]

If you were going to go to a 146" track like I'm considering, why not the 2.5"? Seems to me like the logical one to get. I measured it out, and talked to a few people.. Basically either the 15" or 16" track could be cut down to fit, and cutting it is messy but not much more than that.. It would be nice to have more lug for sure.

Jon

The main reason, and correct me if I'm wrong, would be weight. The 2.5" must be heavier. I would still consider a 2.5 if one came along at a good price. And what about a Polaris track? Did they do a 146". One other thought would be to remove every second clip. It'll be a powder only setup so why not?
CD

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

as for the super long stuff,

I did it, discarded it, and moved shorter. started 151 went 136. going 121" this year.

I think better kit function is the new frontier not track length. The bike is taxed as can be spinning even the 121" they totally lose the fun IMO. Modern 800cc sleds are triple the power of a bike and we are trying to put similar sized tracks on them. the reality is they just cannot spin them quite fast enough to kick ***.

If i were to be building another kit, which i may be, i would focous my design more around making the 121 transfer weight a lot better and keep the thing from pushing the nose through the snow, i feel we are losing a LOT of energy pushing where if we could get the front to float a hair more, power pushing us forward, not thru the snow!

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

I am liking the idea of the mega tipped rails. may have to do up a custom set and revist some of the longer tracks i have. its an easy swap for sure and allowing the weight to roll back on a sort of rounded design could prove to be very productive.

Ill have the gang at Ice Age bend up a set of mega tipped customs, then we can get a nice clean setup to try. Hit me up if anyone wants a set made, customs get cheaper the more are done the same way @ once.

 

[Hawkster]

The problem you might be fighting in the push is that the TS kit was first designed to be under neath you and and to get the machine on top of the snow as quick as possible , different story on the bike since it's behind you . Either it needs to be modified or it's the price you pay to do what two skis can't .

 

[teal_210]

as for the super long stuff,

I did it, discarded it, and moved shorter. started 151 went 136. going 121" this year.

I think better kit function is the new frontier not track length. The bike is taxed as can be spinning even the 121" they totally lose the fun IMO. Modern 800cc sleds are triple the power of a bike and we are trying to put similar sized tracks on them. the reality is they just cannot spin them quite fast enough to kick ***.

If i were to be building another kit, which i may be, i would focous my design more around making the 121 transfer weight a lot better and keep the thing from pushing the nose through the snow, i feel we are losing a LOT of energy pushing where if we could get the front to float a hair more, power pushing us forward, not thru the snow!

Finally someone who thinks the way I do! My set up last year had a ton of ski lift and transfer. Was it a good climber? no. Was it more fun? YEP!

I took a lot of heat on here for trying something different. Longer tracks might be better for some, but you're not going to catch me going longer than a 121.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

Finally someone who thinks the way I do! My set up last year had a ton of ski lift and transfer. Was it a good climber? no. Was it more fun? YEP!

I took a lot of heat on here for trying something different. Longer tracks might be better for some, but you're not going to catch me going longer than a 121.

I got a 162x2.5x16 on the sled, ill keep the bike for fun and the sled for the deep pow.

When its super deep i want my 140 horse and big track, when the snow is even less then ideal, i want my super nimble bike to go explore and rip around on, jump, sidehill insanity, etc.

 

[J&L Snowhawk]

Wider

What about going wider. Nobody want to go that way? Just to hard to do on TS?

 

[CATSLEDMAN1]

tilt a wirl

I like the idea of an angled up rail in the back. Got that in mind a little later in the winter. Wasn 't all that great on the sleds............but hey got to try it on the bikes, might be the thing. Did it to the front of my rails with some cuts and rewelding to eliminate any possibility of track stabbing.