Please tell me this thread is a huge joke mocking somebody????
An end to track length debates!
- Thread starter HOOCH256
- Start date
Hey Hooch, im living in Cheney. Its not to far over to Kalispel for me. Got an xp with a 63 on it that has yet to be slaughtered off in the trees. Im interested to see how you do it. Will have the sled over here for the weekend of the 21st. Give me a call 1 509 560 0935. Always looking to have someone teach me sumthin
can i go...can i go.....can i go!!!!
174" without 200hp plus is just another land yacht in the hills. Might as well sit at the bottom with a beer and a camara.
H
Have2rider
New member
Too many variables
I only read 1 1/2 pages, got tired of the back and forth. Theres to many variables to say what track length wins. Put a 174 under a m5 and it will probably get beat by a m8 with a 144. Now they dont make an m5 with a 174, its just to make a point. Same goes for rider weight, lug length, sled weight, rider skills, sled set up and HP.
Im sure many would agree.
I only read 1 1/2 pages, got tired of the back and forth. Theres to many variables to say what track length wins. Put a 174 under a m5 and it will probably get beat by a m8 with a 144. Now they dont make an m5 with a 174, its just to make a point. Same goes for rider weight, lug length, sled weight, rider skills, sled set up and HP.
Im sure many would agree.
its all in the numbers
174" terrified of getting left behind
162" old guys delight and a yamaha life preserver
159" she's got no umph so lets put on a longer track
153" she's a stock sum beech
144" she's long tracked now
141" Ya think I ought to go to a 144?
136" are we in a museum?
128" some folks can't keep numbers straight!
121" aw go back to Nebraska
13.5" narrow tracks narrow minds
15" just plain vanilla
16" hey that sled was too tippy!
174" terrified of getting left behind
162" old guys delight and a yamaha life preserver
159" she's got no umph so lets put on a longer track
153" she's a stock sum beech
144" she's long tracked now
141" Ya think I ought to go to a 144?
136" are we in a museum?
128" some folks can't keep numbers straight!
121" aw go back to Nebraska
13.5" narrow tracks narrow minds
15" just plain vanilla
16" hey that sled was too tippy!
S
SylvanLaker
Well-known member
I'm gonna fuse two 174's together.... Yah.. then I'll be able to go straight up.. It'll be a 348..
154 track is all you need and is the best for all situations.. imo
154 track is all you need and is the best for all situations.. imo
niiiiiiice pic!!!!!!!
Well, with the big boys running 350 HP and you not even clo........ Hey look, something shiny!
LMAO, 162, Yammi life preserver..
I was thinking that was what the 174 was. LOL
I was thinking that was what the 174 was. LOL
H
HOOCH256
Well-known member
it is me and some buddys got together on a trip to canada and they thought it would be funny to make fun of me cause i used to have the 153 calling it a trail sled, so thats were this list came about, but obvoulsy some people cant take a joke!
H
HOOCH256
Well-known member
thats one sweet looking 350hp 1990's sled ya got there!...i love those trailing arms!
Its all about flotation, you need to think about weight of the rider, sled, gear ect. At what point do we stop buying the longest track and maybe start working on your skills.This reminds me of the 280lb pound rider who needs a m1000 cuz he has gained weight and his 800 is not enough anymore! The best place to lose weight on a sled is the rider. Not trying to rant just my .02 Thanks
H
Have2rider
New member
I know a 260lb guy that spent the money on a boss seat to lose 5lbs.
I wasnt sure if I should make fun of him or feel sorry that it was that important for his sled to lose the weight but not for him.
Ya, but now he effectively weighs in at 255, and his a$$ feels better at the end of the day..hahaha
Personally, I think losing rider weight is less of an advantage compared to losing sled weight. As a rider you are able to position the weight, either front to back or even side to side. How many times have we found ourselves almost laying on the hood trying to keep the nose planted during a steep climb, or wishing we had more led in our butts when you just HAVE TO maintain that sidehill or crash trying. It sounds petty, but You can't do that with an airbox or a Boss seat...haha
Personally, I think losing rider weight is less of an advantage compared to losing sled weight. As a rider you are able to position the weight, either front to back or even side to side. How many times have we found ourselves almost laying on the hood trying to keep the nose planted during a steep climb, or wishing we had more led in our butts when you just HAVE TO maintain that sidehill or crash trying. It sounds petty, but You can't do that with an airbox or a Boss seat...haha
People that need tracks longer that 151 are compensating for something.
Yeah I'm compensating for something, my fat a$$!
Did I say me?? No, I said the "big boys", meaning the 4-stroke turbo crowd and the big displacement crowd. How do you know that I'm not included by one profile pic? An M8 with a 174 and some bar risers is .... ah hell, nevermind, i'm not going to bother.
My avatar should give you an idea that maybe I build some fast things. Ninja ZX streetbike motor in a stretched tube chassis running on gas/alc and NOS. You want long? 120" tip to tip. Climbs anything that I have the b@lls to point it at.
FYI. That sled in my profile weighs 487 lbs full of fluids, so say what you will, but I have never been left in the dust by any stock 800....in fact, it has pulled out a few 800's and I almost had to use it to pull out an Apex two weekends ago. I have another sled as well with a-arms!!!! and pushing, well about 4 figures in the displacement category,
if the one in my profile pic one isn't up to your standards. I'm just not as flashy as others I guess. Not everyone cares what you ride, some of us just care that you do.Weight to footprint
I,m really surprised that no one talks about Weight to Footprint ratio all anyone refers to is HP to weight.I ran two different Custom Indy Lites for 13 yrs. the later one weighed 364 lbs. with a 144 track 65HP 488 fan.When you compared it to the RX-1 with 151 and 150 HP that little guy should not move in the deep stuff.But both of those little guys would really get around in the deep pow and I weigh 225.(not bashing YAMAHA just using RX-1 to compare.)
I,m really surprised that no one talks about Weight to Footprint ratio all anyone refers to is HP to weight.I ran two different Custom Indy Lites for 13 yrs. the later one weighed 364 lbs. with a 144 track 65HP 488 fan.When you compared it to the RX-1 with 151 and 150 HP that little guy should not move in the deep stuff.But both of those little guys would really get around in the deep pow and I weigh 225.(not bashing YAMAHA just using RX-1 to compare.)
tundra, i totally agree, my sled is heavier so a tad more track is practical....
i think the slightly shorter track is more fun, mid 150 range with deep lugs is my ideal track, i only have a 162 cuz it came on my sled, its fun and all, but i like the challange of making the sled do things and it not just taking me around, it definately allows me to go higher, that just means i have to come down farther which aint always fun.
my sled is almost to big for our riding area unless we have tons of deep snow, its all about what you can make the sled do, not what the sled can do.
bigger and longer is always fun, but showing people up on a smaller sled is the most fun you can have!!
i think the slightly shorter track is more fun, mid 150 range with deep lugs is my ideal track, i only have a 162 cuz it came on my sled, its fun and all, but i like the challange of making the sled do things and it not just taking me around, it definately allows me to go higher, that just means i have to come down farther which aint always fun.
my sled is almost to big for our riding area unless we have tons of deep snow, its all about what you can make the sled do, not what the sled can do.
bigger and longer is always fun, but showing people up on a smaller sled is the most fun you can have!!
