Blast Weight

[boondocker97]

So...we need the standard Blast and a Blast SnoPro that's 50lb lighter, fully mountain specific, with a $13k MSRP. Cool.

I remember the 1980 340 fan cooled JAG I was riding from age 8-11. 400lb, less HP, no electric start, no suspension. As a kid I really didn't care until I was going fast enough that it was beating me up making my stomach hurt from the no suspension part on a rough trail. I would have killed for what the blast is now. The JAG is all my dad could afford for me to ride at the time and was about the right amount of sled for me to get around and not get myself in too much trouble.

What I'm saying is there's a place for a decent sled at a decent price without being over the top. There's always going to be kids that have more advanced skills. Just like big sleds the manufacturers have to hit the middle of the spectrum. Those that want more and are willing to spend the money will just have to mod them like some of us do to our machines.

 

[Escmanaze]

So...we need the standard Blast and a Blast SnoPro that's 50lb lighter, fully mountain specific, with a $13k MSRP. Cool.

Well "need" certainly isn't the right word, but how rad would that be to have a 350 pound blast snopro?

But really though, the blast, especially compared to the Evo, is already pretty dang sweet. That's why any of us are even bothering to come talk about it here anyway. That's why I'm so curious to actually find out what the real weight of the darn thing is - because I think there is some real potential here with what Cat has done.

The #1 thing I wish they would have done different, that wouldn't have cost very much at all is to just use the same geometry for the front end as the real mountain sleds. Or even just grab the exact front end off the alpha off the shelf and just don't put a ton of air in the shocks. For all the weight challenges that @Yamadoo04 mentioned, it's painful to then tell your kid that in addition to all that, he now has to have a ski stance that is even wider than Dad's ski stance as well. It just doesn't seem like too much to ask for the blast M to have a skinnier ski stance than the trail blast.

Other than that, I also wish they wouldn't have made the electric start standard. Not the end of the world as I can buy a lightweight battery and mitigate most of the weight penalty, but again, it just doesn't seem like too tall of a task to ask them to offer a pull start only model. Shoot, then we are working toward a cheaper sled, not more expensive.

 

[sno*jet]

im still skipping the hearsay and speculations on the handling and waiting to try one out in the mountains before i judge.
a short 1 cylinder motor is going to toss on edge easier than a 2 cylinder once you get the motor spooled up. they have to please newbies too who will stay on the trails a lot.

 

[BeartoothBaron]

It's interesting that in the video he says "this is a real mountain sled," but also says it'll only be good for a year or two before the rider will want to step up to a 600. Given that you could buy a used 600 at the same price point easily, and it'd probably be better set up for pure mountain riding, it just seems like the Blast is aiming at a small niche. Of course, one big thing missing there is you have a 210lb rider, where the equation changes a lot with a 100lb rider. So a tweenager could go straight up slopes he couldn't, but the flip side is it doesn't take that many years for a young 100lb rider to grow into a 150lb rider. Seems you'd always want to start by asking if the prospective rider could handle a 600.

Anyway, I do have to agree that it's more promising than the EVO RMK, but then if you bring price into it, things get more murky. The Blast should easily be lighter, and has an edge in the chassis department, but is it a $2000 edge? I'd say if they'd do like @Escmanaze suggested and sold a pull start version with a narrow front end, the difference would be more clear. I still can't figure out why the big fuel tank either. Part of me is still wishing someone would really invest in a smaller/lighter chassis. You might convince me that the return on investment just isn't there, but the idea that a 20lb lighter pull start version with a narrow front end isn't worth trying, not so much.

 

[zl5600]

It's interesting that in the video he says "this is a real mountain sled," but also says it'll only be good for a year or two before the rider will want to step up to a 600. Given that you could buy a used 600 at the same price point easily, and it'd probably be better set up for pure mountain riding, it just seems like the Blast is aiming at a small niche. Of course, one big thing missing there is you have a 210lb rider, where the equation changes a lot with a 100lb rider. So a tweenager could go straight up slopes he couldn't, but the flip side is it doesn't take that many years for a young 100lb rider to grow into a 150lb rider. Seems you'd always want to start by asking if the prospective rider could handle a 600.

Anyway, I do have to agree that it's more promising than the EVO RMK, but then if you bring price into it, things get more murky. The Blast should easily be lighter, and has an edge in the chassis department, but is it a $2000 edge? I'd say if they'd do like @Escmanaze suggested and sold a pull start version with a narrow front end, the difference would be more clear. I still can't figure out why the big fuel tank either. Part of me is still wishing someone would really invest in a smaller/lighter chassis. You might convince me that the return on investment just isn't there, but the idea that a 20lb lighter pull start version with a narrow front end isn't worth trying, not so much.

The fuel tank is big because it is off of the trail sleds. Much cheaper to use what you already have than make a new designed tank at 10 x the cost. Just don't fill it up all the way if weight is the issue. Us flat landers will love the big tank. Less stops for fuel.

 

[BeartoothBaron]

I get that, but it's apparently the same tank as the Alpha! Both list 11.7 gallon capacity. I know it's not going to burn half as much, but the Blast should be around 30% less with a smaller rider. I have a hard time envisioning a group only riding Blasts, it's mostly going to be Jr. riding with Dad or whatnot, and Dad is going to be on an Alpha or similar. Given that, the tank should be sized so both sleds are hitting bingo fuel around the same time, and I'd guess that's 8 gallons. Can't speak to flatlanders, but I don't carry gas, and only see 20% or so who do. By slapping the same tank on it, Cat is limiting changes to the cockpit and adding some extra weight (and like I said earlier, a lot of weight for the typical rider who may never notice they're always running off the top of the tank). Just seems like a no-brainer to downsize the tank on a "downsize" sled.

 

[sno*jet]

might be a solid upgrade in technical mountain riding for ya beartooth ?