pretty much looks like 54 inches...from first lug touching ground to center of rear axle...
163 Really Worth it???
- Thread starter Joerobi1
- Start date
hmm
Looks like we got a 54 for the 163....
Who's got a 155 sittin around???
54" on the ground out of 163" of actual track...............................................................interesting isn't it...
Looks like we got a 54 for the 163....
Who's got a 155 sittin around???
54" on the ground out of 163" of actual track...............................................................interesting isn't it...
I bought a 155 and love it. My dad has the 163 and after riding mine he has wondered if he would rather has a 155 now...so he is snowchecking a 2012 155 "for my mom"
I love my 155 and am happy I went the way I did. I had it out in 3+ feet of powder yesterday in the steep, deep, and through the trees and it did awesome! Light and flickable...but I am only 160 pounds
Reasons why he would rather have a 155 vs the 163???
P
pura vida
Well-known member
imagine how well a 144/146 would handle. that's what i wanted but they didn't make one in that length this year. (almost had carl's build me one but ended up deciding 11k was enough to spend on a new sled) i had both a 144 iq (custom setup) and a 09 155 dragon. i could go anywhere on my 144 that i could on my 155. there are very, very few days in alaska (think less than a handful) that i 163 is going to be able to go places a 155 can't. you might have to make one extra cut back (maybe) on a hill and you might not get the high mark. no big deal for me. if a 163 is really that much better why not just go 174, hell what about that 189...
I go longer due to pulling tow sleds to the cabin 50 miles from the road, normally no one rides the area but us so you break trail pulling sleds..also..I am old..i hate getting stuck....
Last edited:
I currently have a 155 Pro and have had 155's for the past few years. I loved the 155 on the IQ and thought the 163 were a little too long and were harder to carve in. However, on the Pro since it is so nimble I am thinking now I should have got a 163. I also notice with the Pro it is easy to get extreme angles when sidehilling and find the 155 washes out a lot.
So, now I am considering putting a Powerclaw 162 on my Pro 155.
I also think track length has a lot to do with a person's height. I feel that taller people (6' plus) have more leverage and can easily manipulate the longer track sled.
So, now I am considering putting a Powerclaw 162 on my Pro 155.
I also think track length has a lot to do with a person's height. I feel that taller people (6' plus) have more leverage and can easily manipulate the longer track sled.
He seemed to like the handling characteristics of it, here in Wa. we don't get a ton of days where a 163 will outshine a 155 IMO. The 163, still moves better on the PRO chassy than my 155 did on the IQ thats for sure!
?
Anybody get the 155 measurement I was mentioning???
Anybody get the 155 measurement I was mentioning???
P
PalousePoo
Well-known member
163 All the way!!! It will flat out have better deep snow performance, from my experience. Last weekend I also witnessed the big difference in M-8's with 153 vs 162 tracks. Both machines are stock, the 153 was a JOKE in the deep snow of McCall, Id. When I watch these power claws start moving, the sled first "sinks", then is either stuck, or the rider is rocking the sled to keep it moving and trying to get on top. Can't believe some buy these tracks for their polaris????
Once you're used to a 163, you won't notice the slight manuverability loss. MHO
Once you're used to a 163, you won't notice the slight manuverability loss. MHO
I'm in agreement but understand the masses and types of riding guys to can differ. Probably only matters for certain extreme riding conditions. Weirdly it's just the opposite on the PRO then years gone by. You used to be able to control and handle the shorter version better but now this chassis changes everything.
I have one bad ol bacon 155 and if I was doing it all over again it would be a 163. Having now spent considerable time trading back and forth between a stock 163 and my hotrod 155. For the exact reason Palouse just expressed. Totally easy to ride and this is conditions that would flat out STOP (and did) a lesser sled or track. Deep snow, off camber, start stop hop, lay over and stick to a long side hill or crash to the bottom of a ravine, nothing but trees with one line through. You cannot tell me after experiencing this 163 in action that you need a shorter track to handle these tight agile riding conditions. It's a better balance and control tool for extreme riding plain and simple. I'll coach everyone who respects my opinion to get a 163 including when the PRO 600 comes out even if it requires a mod. For our western style free riding it's a better all around setup. It's the EASY BUTTON That said it's also going to be a more balanced and easier to ride vehicle for those that are just starting venture off the beaten path. Not going Burandt style but just getting out into the open spaces and learning off trail riding.
If you're a decent experienced rider but putter around in open spaces then it really doesn't matter and then just get what ever.
I have one bad ol bacon 155 and if I was doing it all over again it would be a 163. Having now spent considerable time trading back and forth between a stock 163 and my hotrod 155. For the exact reason Palouse just expressed. Totally easy to ride and this is conditions that would flat out STOP (and did) a lesser sled or track. Deep snow, off camber, start stop hop, lay over and stick to a long side hill or crash to the bottom of a ravine, nothing but trees with one line through. You cannot tell me after experiencing this 163 in action that you need a shorter track to handle these tight agile riding conditions. It's a better balance and control tool for extreme riding plain and simple. I'll coach everyone who respects my opinion to get a 163 including when the PRO 600 comes out even if it requires a mod. For our western style free riding it's a better all around setup. It's the EASY BUTTON That said it's also going to be a more balanced and easier to ride vehicle for those that are just starting venture off the beaten path. Not going Burandt style but just getting out into the open spaces and learning off trail riding.
If you're a decent experienced rider but putter around in open spaces then it really doesn't matter and then just get what ever.
interesting...
I'll have to call my poo mechanic buddy and see what he comes up with..
You wouldn't think there would be 10" difference...
54" on the ground on 163
44" on 155
??????????
I'll have to call my poo mechanic buddy and see what he comes up with..
You wouldn't think there would be 10" difference...
54" on the ground on 163
44" on 155
??????????
With everthing else staying the same (drivers/idlers/suspension)...
The 163 will have 1/2 of the difference in track circumference added to the length of the rails.
163-155 = 8" (actually 8.58")
1/2 of that = 4" ((actually 4.29") more track in the snow or a little more tan 1 row of lugs (in the snow) on a 2.86" pitch 163 track compared to the 155".
The 163 has 57 rows of paddles... the 155 has 54 rows. (3 rows of paddles different which would make it 8.58" in actual length diff)
More length above the suspension than on the snow... This changes slightly, very slightly on the PRO skid, when the suspension cycles through the travel. The arc of the front swing arm is what dictates the amount of track tensioning in a given sled... the PRO arm is longer than the IQ arm which results in less tension added to the track as the skid cycles through the travel.
Since the pitch of the track is 2.86" the even numbers (eg 163, 155, 146) are approximations... the same length 2.86 Pitch tracks.... Doo calls it a 154 Polaris calls it a 155...Doo-162 Poo 163"
It is not a HUGE difference in actual length all said and done.
In coastal snow or spring time snow, while climbing and leaving a trench behind... It is more difficult for smaller and less experienced riders to turn out safely at the top if you didn't make the climb with a longer track. I have watched this on many occasions last season with the Demos.
I've had my butt on both the 163" and 155" and prefer the 155 for myself.
Heck... I'm considering a 146 600 for next season if they come out with it.
Speaking strictly flotation... any longer track will perform much better.
Lower speed or less-throttle riding, IMO the length plays a bigger role.
It will be interesting to see for next year what the professional riders like Dan Adams and Chris Burandt will be riding... A 163 or 155 (or shorter).
Heck... There are some people on here that run the 174" tracks and love them... those are only 5" longer than the 163" rails.
Everyone has a sled that they prefer.
F-Bomb has some interesting ideas in his presentation... The Tipped up rails on the 2011 163's may have something to do with the impression. I'll be testing them out in Alpine this month as I hop from Sled to sled on stock 155 and 163 Pro RMK's.
I really like his point about beginner riders... The learning experience is MUCH more pleasurable when you are getting stuck less!!
The 163 will have 1/2 of the difference in track circumference added to the length of the rails.
163-155 = 8" (actually 8.58")
1/2 of that = 4" ((actually 4.29") more track in the snow or a little more tan 1 row of lugs (in the snow) on a 2.86" pitch 163 track compared to the 155".
The 163 has 57 rows of paddles... the 155 has 54 rows. (3 rows of paddles different which would make it 8.58" in actual length diff)
More length above the suspension than on the snow... This changes slightly, very slightly on the PRO skid, when the suspension cycles through the travel. The arc of the front swing arm is what dictates the amount of track tensioning in a given sled... the PRO arm is longer than the IQ arm which results in less tension added to the track as the skid cycles through the travel.
Since the pitch of the track is 2.86" the even numbers (eg 163, 155, 146) are approximations... the same length 2.86 Pitch tracks.... Doo calls it a 154 Polaris calls it a 155...Doo-162 Poo 163"
It is not a HUGE difference in actual length all said and done.
In coastal snow or spring time snow, while climbing and leaving a trench behind... It is more difficult for smaller and less experienced riders to turn out safely at the top if you didn't make the climb with a longer track. I have watched this on many occasions last season with the Demos.
Carl's sends a LOT of their custom builds out the door with the PC tracks as upgrades. I love my PC track and cant wait to get some seat time on the Brand new Series II Challenger Extreme that I just got in.
I've had my butt on both the 163" and 155" and prefer the 155 for myself.
Heck... I'm considering a 146 600 for next season if they come out with it.
Speaking strictly flotation... any longer track will perform much better.
Lower speed or less-throttle riding, IMO the length plays a bigger role.
It will be interesting to see for next year what the professional riders like Dan Adams and Chris Burandt will be riding... A 163 or 155 (or shorter).
Heck... There are some people on here that run the 174" tracks and love them... those are only 5" longer than the 163" rails.
Everyone has a sled that they prefer.
F-Bomb has some interesting ideas in his presentation... The Tipped up rails on the 2011 163's may have something to do with the impression. I'll be testing them out in Alpine this month as I hop from Sled to sled on stock 155 and 163 Pro RMK's.
I really like his point about beginner riders... The learning experience is MUCH more pleasurable when you are getting stuck less!!
Last edited:
The issue with this is, for beginners or not, it is putting people in areas they shouldn't or wouldn't other wise be in.
Much more of an issue for beginners.
I'm glad I started on a 121 to a 136, to a 144, to a 156..etc.
You learn valuable skills, and are not put into terrain you have no business being in.
there we go
So we've solved the case....
FOUR,,,,, that is 4 inches in difference.... ON THE GROUND!!!
So,,,,, can you really tell???????
I like em both...
So we've solved the case....
FOUR,,,,, that is 4 inches in difference.... ON THE GROUND!!!
So,,,,, can you really tell???????
I like em both...
Well... I just got off the phone with Dan Adams... Had a good long 1 hour conversation...
He has always been a mid length track guy in the past...Although with his NextLevel Clinic business he has changed his riding style a bit to be more compatible with a true teaching environment... he said hands down that his go to length in the PRO-RMK is now and will be the 163" with the 2012's next year!
Now Dan has spent more time on these PRO RMK Chassis than almost anyone out there... literally... Throughout the Demo Tours/Promo shoots last year and this as well as constant riding throughout the this year with clients almost every day.
In his words " I never was a long track guy...the Dragon with the 163 on it was just too much sled...But on the PRO RMK... The 163 is ideal for balance and control"
This meshes well with F-Bombs, who has a lot of time on his 155" (obviously).
Since I trust in Dans and F-bombs opinion... I will need to think long and hard about it for myself. Cant wait to get the seat time on them in Alpine.
He has always been a mid length track guy in the past...Although with his NextLevel Clinic business he has changed his riding style a bit to be more compatible with a true teaching environment... he said hands down that his go to length in the PRO-RMK is now and will be the 163" with the 2012's next year!
Now Dan has spent more time on these PRO RMK Chassis than almost anyone out there... literally... Throughout the Demo Tours/Promo shoots last year and this as well as constant riding throughout the this year with clients almost every day.
In his words " I never was a long track guy...the Dragon with the 163 on it was just too much sled...But on the PRO RMK... The 163 is ideal for balance and control"
This meshes well with F-Bombs, who has a lot of time on his 155" (obviously).
Since I trust in Dans and F-bombs opinion... I will need to think long and hard about it for myself. Cant wait to get the seat time on them in Alpine.
looks like sales of the 163 are going to go way up for next year
