does this make sense?

[WAmtnsledr]

i was just thinking about this, if you divide how much track you have in contact with the snow by how heavy your sled is you should be able to see how many square inches of your track= one pound of your sleds weight. for example if your sled weighs 550 lbs wet and you have 1600 square inches of track on the ground that would mean 2.9 square inches of your track is supporting one pound of weight. so if your sled weighs 500 lbs wet and you have 1800 sq. in. of track on the snow the that would equal 3.6 sq. in. of track per pound. so the higher the number the less you sink in the pow. all hypothetical, does this make any sense and would it be a determinng factor in how well your sled floats through the pow?

 

[Clarke673]

yes.

 

[backcountryislife]

no.






ok, yeah, it does, I just didn't feel comfortable agreeing right now.
btw, too many other factors for that to be much of a useful equation.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

also, dont forget skis, and to be the most useful, you would need the weight on each ski, and the track. I know my sled was to ski heavy with a bad skid setup, thus being very "sinky" in the pow, letting the weight ride on the track allowed it to float around better and not plow.

 

[WAmtnsledr]

thanks. i thought it would make sense. would it be pounds per square inch or square inches per pound?

 

[polaris dude]

that equation would work good if you aren't planning on moving

 

[xrated]

wait what about the 300lb800 theory that the belly pan is used for floatation more so then the track and skis.....crap add that in with both those and this math is to hard for me.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

thanks. i thought it would make sense. would it be pounds per square inch or square inches per pound?

pounds per square inch(psi) the standard unit for pressure in the US...

again, the info is somewhat useless as way to many other things come into play.

 

[WAmtnsledr]

I now see that there are way to many factors, skis, how heavy the rider is, shape of the bellypan, etc. and this would only work anyways if you rode it without ever getting the sled on its side, which would suck

 

[Clarke673]

also...the paddles that digg into the snow are touching more snow than just the XXXX square inches....so you have to facter that in along with how much track is actualy touching the snow..... ILt is usualy just a common sence thing...You sled weighs 600 pounds wiht 130 hp and a 155" track. My sled weighs 550 pounds with 120 hp and a 121" track....You will out limb the **** out of me...

 

[winter brew]

All else equal, more track always=better in the deep and higher on the hill....always.
There are SO many other factors as previously stated....plus the engle of approach, the shape of the rail at approach, the weight distribution of the sled/rider, too much or too little ski flotation to achieve the proper "attitude" of the sled/rider in the deep to have the optimum approach/balance ....sometimes skinny skis are better, sometimes wide.. depending on the chassis and track length.
Then the tunnel/running board design....is it helping or hurting?

 

[Lushbomb]

I really think the biggest factor in floatation is how heavy your thumb is..

heavier the thumb, the better you float..

does this make sense?

this guys floatation is probably off the charts becasue he uses that lefty throttle technique too.. (lame-IMO)

now if you install more thumbs like this guy has.. well.. you'll probably never sink again

 

[Clarke673]

I really think the biggest factor in floatation is how heavy your thumb is..

heavier the thumb, the better you float..

does this make sense?

this guys floatation is probably off the charts becasue he uses that lefty throttle technique too.. (lame-IMO)

now if you install more thumbs like this guy has.. well.. you'll probably never sink again

doh! That explaines why im always stuck....