2.5'' or 3''

[damx]

cant make my mind up to go with the C.E 162x 2.5''. or 162x 3'', for my 1100t with td reflash. can any one with eather of these tracks on there 1100t give me there thoughts. thanx

 

[shaw419]

I took my sled on two trips before going to the 3" CE and it was worth every penny. I ground my cooler fins down for extra clearance but it will fit without doing this. I didn't like my sled till this track went on. The extra traction makes up for the extra weight of the sled and I'm running stock tunes. With more power I'm sure the 3" will shine even more. Plus it's nice not going for a toboggan ride on every downhill.

 

[damx]

How much of the fins did you grind down?

 

[shaw419]

I ground mine down almost all the way to the rest of the cooler. I left a tiny lip to grab the snow for extra cooling. This gives you a little under 3/8" clearance between track and cooler. Did this to two of these sleds and both rode all season without any rubbing or cooling issues.

 

[damx]

Did you just grind the front part where the track is the closest or did you keep going where the cooler bends need the tunnel ?

 

[s2h]

any pictures of the ground cooler?

 

[shaw419]

I only did it where clearance is an issue. You will need to grind like 2/3 the fins down.

 

[damx]

thanx for the help.

 

[ghostrider73]

I ran a 3 in 174 all year with no grinding done and it worked flawlessly definitely recommend the big track.

 

[damx]

Ya I'm going to get the 162x3" when they come in, I'll try it with out any grinding first

 

[mountainhorse]

Heres my thoughts on the 3" track... great track for the right conditions.

From a post last season

These tracks should be looked at like a tire on a dragster... an expendable, purpose built tool to get some extreme work done outside of what a consumer offering can provide... In the conditions that we are running these tracks in, the Horsepower and speed that we are getting out of these sleds... don't compare them to the the durablilty track on your 2000 Mountain Max/Summit/SKS/Powder Special. With the loads todays sleds are putting on these tracks..they are actually more durable than Your ole 1.5" paddle.

If you cram 200+ HP into a track and generate 90mph track speeds in the fluff and hit a hard ice chunk, stump or rock... you will loose paddles... If you don't like this, get a shorter lug track that is not so stiff... YES your performance will drop, but your track will last longer and be more durable.

If you must have the higher performance that the tall lug tracks will give you... accept the shorter life of the track... you can't have both, IMO.

Proper tension (not too loose) on these tall lug tracks will give your sled better performance and longer track life as well.

There are some defective tracks just like there are defective computers, tires, snap-on tools ... you name it... But, Camoplast builds a very high quality product.

If you have a turbo... and are running the 3" lug, well, you should expect to putt along on the trail at 30mph max with scratchers down and expect that these stiff & Tall lugs with all the leverage they can put on the belting will shed some paddles when you are climbing the gnarly chute... or boondocking and snag a rock or ice chunk. ... you should expect this.... and to a certain degree, you should expect this with the 2.5" Extreme if you abuse it with high speeds and/or run over stuff at on a 250-hp+ pull with 80mph track speeds...


The damage to a track that sheds a paddle probably happened earlier in the day/week/month/season.... From that high speed run back to the cabin/trailer or a that 300 ft long sheet of ice we barely make it up fully pinned WFO. The heat that builds up INSIDE the rubber at the root of the paddle is what starts the process of delamination...this heat occurs because the paddle is forced to bend too much at the root ...from the heat of high speeds... in marginal snow... back and forth, like breaking a paper clip by wiggling it back and forth (different physics, I know... but the visual is what I'm going for here)



In order to run a taller track you not only have to maintain the lug tip clearance, but you have to increase it (on stock tunnel/skid/drive). Simply put, a taller lug will move more snow. The more snow you have to move out the front of any given tunnel-opening, the more parasitic loss you will have ( “pumping-loss”).

To illustrate this, look at any action pic, in the pow, where someone is on a "wheelie" for whatever reason... you will see gobs of snow spraying out the front of the tunnel. The tighter the opening is, the more power it takes to push the snow past the restriction (the opening at the front of the tunnel at the bulkhead)...

Getting a track to fit, and having it run well are not necessarily the same thing. If it comes close to rubbing, IMO (as well as Mark Holz, Mike Vanamburg and others) it has no place on a properly set up deep-snow sled.

People riding in light champagne powder will have a whole lot easier time getting thru the snow with little clearance than wet heavy pow... like we get on the west coast.

 

[10003514]

mountain horse very well put, for me I wouldn't go any bigger then the 2.5 CE.

 

[knifedge]

--What goes in must come out--so how is snow going to pack up into the bulkhead and cause drag issues? Or how is pumping snow out going to cause parasitic loss?

--Are you saying that with proper bulkhead clearance that the snow being pumped into the front of the tunnel should be able to blow out or fall out on its own, thereby allowing the track speed to be higher than the snow evacuation speed? -- With tight bulkhead clearance, the track speed and snow evac speed will be similar because the snow would be pushed by the track lugs and not necessarily be thrown out of the reach of the lugs by centrifugal force.

--Sounds like the only critical clearance issue(as far as parasitic snow issues are concerned) may be at the front bulkhead where centrifugal force is trying to throw the snow off the track as the track makes the radius turn around the driver

--Is there any documented testing of track speed with a deep lug track setup with proper clearance and one without(with everything else being equal)?

 

[ghostrider73]

Track speed

No scientific data here on my part but I rode with several stock tracked m1100 this year and was always the heaviest guy and I always pulled very similar track speeds to them regardless of snow conditions sometimes I was higher sometimes they were but always within 2 to 3 mph. I will glady take a 2 or 3 mph track speed drop for the benefits of a 174 x 3. Just my findings like I said not scientific but real world. Also 700 hard icy rocky miles on the track no chucked paddles. I do go slow on the trails though

 

[damx]

Ya don't think track speed will be a problem, with the low elevation I ride and the td turbo outlet, exhaust, and reflash I'm getting 65 to 74 mph track speed. 65 on low setting 72 too 74 on the hight setting. Got the kmod rear conversion on order, with the 162x3" going on, should be a good combo!