3"vs 2.6" on axys

[Teth-Air]

There are a couple of things I notice comparing a 163 x2.6 to a 163 x3 AXY and we had my 163 x 2.4, 2015 there too.

Both the AXYS's trenched more than the old Pro and would get stuck nose way up in the air more than the old Pro. The deeper lug the track, the worse the trenching.

When digging the sleds out we noticed tons of snow was being carried through the tunnels and being deposited as a wet slush in front of the track. This froze rapidly and made an obstacle for the sled to climb over. The old M8 Cats were bad for this.

When climbing or moving at a decent speed, the AXYS sleds would outclimb the old Pro as long as you could maintain control.

Comparing the 2.6 to the 3.0: both sleds felt more different from the gearing than the track.

I'm sure in heavy deep snow the 3" may work better but in the light stuff I felt it was just too stiff.

 

[RMK935VA]

Anyone have a good comparison yet of the Axys 2.6 compared to the 3"? Seems a lot of people are jumping on the 3" but the belt would be nice too...

On a deep snow day, two Axys 163 by 2.6" did better than an Axys 163 by 3" with an SLP pipe. One 2.6 was stock except for clutching and one has a Diamond S Titanium Quiet muffler on it and is clutched. The 3" sled is also clutched. Independent rider took all three up a long pull in the trees twice and determined that the 2.6 with the Diamond S muffler was the strongest runner of the three sleds.

Maybe the above comparison was an anomaly but I really like how the 2.6 works in the deep.

 

[RMK935VA]

not a direct comparison between Axys but a Pro to Axys but still found it interesting.

some buddies were riding last weekend one on a axys 155" 2.6 and the other on a Pro 155" 3". Axys Rider weights 30lbs more than Pro rider. they got to a decently steep hill and the Por had to zig zag 3 times across the hill to make it over and the Axys shot right over the top.

I would have purchased the 2.6 and swapped drivers and put the 3" track on it versus buying the 3" and putting an aftermarket belt drive on for the money involved.

My 2.6 is all of the track that I need and I have had it in the 3'+ deep. The lighter weight and belt drive works better. I also agree with the post about the gearing being too low on the 3". That is relatively easy to correct but you still have a heavy less responsive chain drive to deal with.

 

[iquizy]

Any input on durability between 2.6 and 3"? From what I have seen the the 2.6 is less durable.

 

[mountainhorse]

I'm really not too sure about which one is "more efficient" or "less efficient"... the Polaris Hyvo chain-drive or the QuickDrive™... OR if that efficiency actually makes any noticeable difference in performance .... but that is a discussion best left for another thread.

The clutching, from the Polaris Factory, is identical on the all the 800 AXYS-mtn 800's as I've said in post #36.

Which one was that clutching set up to be "ideal" for???

Of course the 3" will feel different, it weighs more, there is more parasitic drag from less clearance in the tunnel.
I feel that the 2.6" has ideal clearance... and the 3" has less-than-ideal clearance in the tunnel.
One will feel snappier than the other... it has to.


AND...

I'd really like to ride, back to back, identical runs on 2.6" & 3" 155" tracked Bone stock SKS's .... with tensions adjusted etc... that ran only different "optimized" clutching from one source that knows their stuff like Carls or a few others out there.

There great riders like Phatty and others that can ride me into the ground...So it would be best if riders like them could swing a leg over those two sleds and give us their opinion.





.

 

[Griff]

Excellent food for thought Mountainhorse. Sure would like a definitive answer to the question of Quick Drive efficiency vs. chain drive efficiency.

Perhaps we could ask the engineers at Polaris to elaborate?

 

[mountainhorse]

Have asked... and ... NO.


.

 

[TARI]

2.6 " track with terra alps racing head good track speed, the pro with 163 stock track with some HP still works great in powder, doesn't dig as hard.

 

[rulonjj]

Doing a little research on the belt drive vs chaindrive pretty much I came to the conclusion that they are similar in efficiency with the chain drive maybe being slightly more efficient. The belt drive is lighter so it would be more rippy on the bottom end but maybe a little less top end power being transferred.

 

[phatty]

I'm really not too sure about which one is "more efficient" or "less efficient"... the Polaris Hyvo chain-drive or the QuickDrive™... OR if that efficiency actually makes any noticeable difference in performance .... but that is a discussion best left for another thread.

The clutching, from the Polaris Factory, is identical on the all the 800 AXYS-mtn 800's as I've said in post #36.

Which one was that clutching set up to be "ideal" for???

Of course the 3" will feel different, it weighs more, there is more parasitic drag from less clearance in the tunnel.
I feel that the 2.6" has ideal clearance... and the 3" has less-than-ideal clearance in the tunnel.
One will feel snappier than the other... it has to.


AND...

I'd really like to ride, back to back, identical runs on 2.6" & 3" 155" tracked Bone stock SKS's .... with tensions adjusted etc... that ran only different "optimized" clutching from one source that knows their stuff like Carls or a few others out there.

There great riders like Phatty and others that can ride me into the ground...So it would be best if riders like them could swing a leg over those two sleds and give us their opinion.





.

The only place I could really ever feel a difference in the track was going from downhill with a hard cranking U turn to flip the sled and go back up hill (or sidehill). The 163" 3" wanted to push out sideways across the hill more than the other sleds (155" 3" did not feel like this). It was noticable, but not bad as the old 3" tracks i have ridden in the past. So I presume its a length issue more than a lug height issue.

As for track durability... its hard to say, with the early season bottomless there have been lots of dirt moving and logs that have been run over. Im missing 2 lugs on my 2.6, but so are my riding partners 3" tracks... I expect that to happen when you ride hard early season. I am actually impressed they are doing as well as they are all things considered.

 

[Teth-Air]

I really want some feedback from others on the issue of the back end slipping out on side hills and the nose going up hill. These sled are way worse for this than my old Pro. I am trying to pinpoint it as being the fault of the track or suspension??

I am trying to stay all the way forward and lean over the bars.

It seems to me that these aggressive tracks are not packing the snow as much but rather saw through it??

I am posting a link to my ride on New Years Eve. See how the nose on my sled keeps going up hill.

I am riding so slow because there are big water holes just below me.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/318mmy8319shptl/Creek Video.mp4?dl=0

 

[CO 2.0]

If you use the brake with the throttle on side hills it will help keep the sled pointed straight and not try to climb uphill as bad. I'm not overly impressed with the 3" on mine. That's why I want to put a 3" powerclaw on it. I love the track on my Proclimb. 3" on my axys trenches much worse.

 

[BILTIT]

Putting a 3"PC on my pro (i know, not the same chassis) this weekend. I have always preferred the PC over the polaris tracks.

I felt the 2.25PC was better than the 2.4 polaris (limited riding time on the polaris track though). Have run the 2.6PC for some of last/this season and it works really well. I figure the 3"PC will only be better.


CO 2.0-Keep us updated if you do put a 3"PC on, would be nice to know the comparison of the two.

 

[CO 2.0]

Well I just bought a 3" powerclaw, should get it next week. Hopefully I'll get it to fit on the stock rails.

 

[Jaynelson]

For the guys who are going to ride their sleds stock and not start changing clutching and other parts...IMO, it's safe to say that....the feel between the 2.6" sleds and the the 3" sleds is more of a difference than the performance. If you ride to have fun, aren't worried about numbers games, and want the snappiest, lightest feeling sled...get the 2.6.

That said, we are still talking small differences...and nothing that is going to make or break anyone's riding. So buy whatever you like the sound of. It will be interesting to see if the 3" remains a snowcheck only option...or what happens there.

 

[Scott]

I really want some feedback from others on the issue of the back end slipping out on side hills and the nose going up hill. These sled are way worse for this than my old Pro. I am trying to pinpoint it as being the fault of the track or suspension??

I am trying to stay all the way forward and lean over the bars.

It seems to me that these aggressive tracks are not packing the snow as much but rather saw through it??

I am posting a link to my ride on New Years Eve. See how the nose on my sled keeps going up hill.

I am riding so slow because there are big water holes just below me.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/318mmy8319shptl/Creek Video.mp4?dl=0

There are other variables here also.

Rider input.
Snow and terrain conditions.
And yes, suspension and some track.

Yes, some variable come in to play more than others at different times.

 

[swrev]

There are other variables here also.

Rider input.
Snow and terrain conditions.

Yes, some variable come in to play more than others at different times.

Don't know if I dare say this here, but it looks like you need to ride it more like a Doo. Either get that foot all the way forward in the footwell or just leave both feet on the running boards so you can let the sled a little further out w/out pedaling it (easier said than done in those conditions where speed could be more detrimental than helpful). Which will allow the track to push forward better. I have not rode an Axys yet, but that is just what it appears to me from the video. Can't wait to try one. Few of the vids out there look like guys are riding motorcycles vs a sled.

 

[kmo]

I think the reason the 2.6 feels like it jumps on the snow better is the gearing. The 3" feels like it is geared way too low. I am gearing my 3" up. My 2013 Pro with a 3" was geared much higher than this new 3" which is supposed to be a much lighter track. And it worked extremely well. I'll report back my findings....

Well, gearing up cost me track speed. I went back to stock gearing in my TKI belt drive but I also firmed up the preload of the rear skid shock. That made a huge difference. I rode it back to back up a steep hill in soft snow with a friends 2.6, same track length, same SLP pipe. The skis on his sled were much higher and his sled had some trenching that mine didn't. He tightened his spring up and hit it again and he said there was a noticeable improvement. I think the 3" track grabs better traction and cause a faster and more slightly forceful transfer and thus requires more spring in the rear skid shock to keep the sled flat on the snow when climbing. Mine stays flat now although I probably have tightened the spring beyond what is efficient for it. It is not at all harsh on the trail, in fact still feels a bit soft. I weigh 196 in street clothes. I bought a #230 spring from Carl's that I am going to install tomorrow. It is halfway between the stock spring and the next heavier spring that Polaris offers. This sled is extremely amazing as far as what it will do in deep snow.......never would have believed it had I not ridden one.

 

[takethebounce]

I really want some feedback from others on the issue of the back end slipping out on side hills and the nose going up hill. These sled are way worse for this than my old Pro. I am trying to pinpoint it as being the fault of the track or suspension??

I am trying to stay all the way forward and lean over the bars.

It seems to me that these aggressive tracks are not packing the snow as much but rather saw through it??

I am posting a link to my ride on New Years Eve. See how the nose on my sled keeps going up hill.

I am riding so slow because there are big water holes just below me.

It all appears to be lack of talent with the rider


In the few times I have jumped from the 2.6 to the 3.0 my only noticeable comment was the lower gearing of the 3.0 at least the result of what I believe is the lower gearing. The sled carried slightly more ground speed in some situations where I found I had to correct myself and not override the sled compared to the 2.6 where I felt more confidence. Shock setup difference between the sleds would have also played a role. But the initial snappiness from the 2.6 wasn't there with the 3.0. Not a huge difference but just felt a little better on the 2.6

I also still run stock gearing on my '14, though going to a 2.25 I find is a happy medium on the pre '16 sleds, but I live with the stock setup. I would like to try a 3.0 geared a little taller for comparison.

They may not move forward on edge as flat as the Pro but I didn't mind the rest of it.

 

[Muldonc]

May be a bit off topic about the Polaris but it seems that the last few mountain models they have put out like to trench and lift the front end. I have a 2012 Rmk 163x3 with a turbo and it needed some cheap McIver mods to the skid to keep the front end down and avoid those deep trenches. Without the mods a person could disappear in the trenches and the sled was not much better than stock as it would just stand up and dig in the deep. Not to mention wanting to coming over backwards in the steep.

Adding more power to the sleds, with the new motors, may just amplify this issue, the manufacturer may want to address this before we can compare the tracks. I may be wrong but my two bits.