P
PalousePoo
Well-known member
Anyone have a shootout between these two tracks with comparable sleds? Rob???
f-bomb track mod vs challenger extreme
- Thread starter PalousePoo
- Start date
I have both tracks cut and screwed but they are different lengths and on different HP sleds. So we can't really come up with truelly definative answer on which is superior to which. 100% there was significant improvement in performance in all setup varieties of snow and no fall off in deep light powder. I'd do it again on both without hesitation. While I felt more of an increase with performance on the CE track from the stocker and you can feel it bite harder out of the hole I wouldn't (and didn't) run out and get a CE for my 800 after running the trimmed and screwed 5.1.
G
GMCRMK
Well-known member
I love my snowmobile so much I'm going to screw my track. 
Actually, I'm just going to cut for now. I'll hold off on the full screw commitment 'till later.
Here's the thread that convinced me it's a "must do".
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154154http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154154&page=2
Actually, I'm just going to cut for now. I'll hold off on the full screw commitment 'till later.
Here's the thread that convinced me it's a "must do".
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154154http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154154&page=2
Last edited:
is this really worth it or should just get a new track or save the money and trim
its a very hard toss up
its a very hard toss up
PV I have concluded that with that chassis and the stock front driver the perfect balance between windage through the front bulkhead area and still having driving or snow moving paddles is 2.1" to 2.15". On the 5.1 track that was cutting the paddle lug off just below the ribbed edge just enough that you could actually take that all off as one piece. That left enough thickness at that area to sink the #6 1" small head square drive screws until they were buried. If you drive them too far they bunch the lugs but just so they went in below the rubber. I've tried lots of varieties of screws in length and also leaving a hex head out for additional ice and stump grabbing but you couldn't really tell any benefit there so I've settled in on sinking the screw in completely. (hand cutter with generous dressing of wd40)
This gave a sled with zero clutch modifications between tests 4 and 9 MPH top speed on GPS depending on the snow condition and depth during flat lake style long range testing. It also made a difference of 12 sled lengths in heads up drag racing with two consistant test sleds for comparison. (most of that was actual leaving traction) This also increased my RPM's to a point that the known tried and tested Carl's clutch setup for this sled was actually about 1gram short on a normal day and almost 2 for the weight style they recommend if the snow was wet or the day was warmer. I could get 8700 consistantly (max read was 8800) and really feel like it is much stronger at 8450-8500 max with the twins.
The final two questions would be is there a handicap in deep snow hillclimbing and then overall track durability.
Most of my riding is in the mountains of Eastern Oregon (Eagle Caps 4000-7000ft alt) and South West Idaho (McCall 5500-8500ft alt) but we spend significant riding time on trips to Wyoming (Jackson, Alpine, and Afton 6000-10500ft alt). I've concluded for our types of snow there is zero fall off or deep snow detriment to this modification. What I don't know is if this would be a good modification for guys that spend all of their time in ultra deep, ultra dry, champagne style snow (we get it maybe once a season and it never holds for more then a day and we've concluded that everyone is stuck on those rare days with the stocker track so why not maximize performance for the rest of the enviroments). There is a computer model formula that Camoplast uses in it's design and then is tested for mtn applications in Colorado and it's a balance of many many aspects with the general goal to maximize forward vehical enertia. (like...snow moisture content, depth, lug length, lug pattern, lug angle, durameter throughout the lug, paddle thickness, paddle taper, vehicle HP, vehicle weight, ect ect) Polaris spec's their track for Camoplast and they manufacture it per request. The design spec's are from two different engineering inputs. (performance..cost..weight..durability..target environment...marketing versus competition)
Finally durability wise I've thrown no lugs or had no issues with failures in over 1200 miles on a stock 5.1 and 3000 miles on a CE. I've also spent consistant time well over the max recommended MPH (lake and trail testing) of both of those tracks to test heat build up, top speed, and how that relates to durability. Generally don't run the sleds through rocks and stumps at all out high speed but we all hit stuff under the snow in everyday common mountain free riding yet all of my lugs and screws are still in place. The conclusion there is also no additional risk of failure due to inserting screws.
Now lots of guys are simply trimming their stocker tracks and the known benefit there is mostly related to windage in the limited space of the stock IQ RAW tunnel. You'll see results but you can really feel how much more firm the lug is when you put in the 1" #6 screws. Still flexible and with some throw down at the belt but significantly more solid at the business end. Which in the field netted a higher performance machine.
This gave a sled with zero clutch modifications between tests 4 and 9 MPH top speed on GPS depending on the snow condition and depth during flat lake style long range testing. It also made a difference of 12 sled lengths in heads up drag racing with two consistant test sleds for comparison. (most of that was actual leaving traction) This also increased my RPM's to a point that the known tried and tested Carl's clutch setup for this sled was actually about 1gram short on a normal day and almost 2 for the weight style they recommend if the snow was wet or the day was warmer. I could get 8700 consistantly (max read was 8800) and really feel like it is much stronger at 8450-8500 max with the twins.
The final two questions would be is there a handicap in deep snow hillclimbing and then overall track durability.
Most of my riding is in the mountains of Eastern Oregon (Eagle Caps 4000-7000ft alt) and South West Idaho (McCall 5500-8500ft alt) but we spend significant riding time on trips to Wyoming (Jackson, Alpine, and Afton 6000-10500ft alt). I've concluded for our types of snow there is zero fall off or deep snow detriment to this modification. What I don't know is if this would be a good modification for guys that spend all of their time in ultra deep, ultra dry, champagne style snow (we get it maybe once a season and it never holds for more then a day and we've concluded that everyone is stuck on those rare days with the stocker track so why not maximize performance for the rest of the enviroments). There is a computer model formula that Camoplast uses in it's design and then is tested for mtn applications in Colorado and it's a balance of many many aspects with the general goal to maximize forward vehical enertia. (like...snow moisture content, depth, lug length, lug pattern, lug angle, durameter throughout the lug, paddle thickness, paddle taper, vehicle HP, vehicle weight, ect ect) Polaris spec's their track for Camoplast and they manufacture it per request. The design spec's are from two different engineering inputs. (performance..cost..weight..durability..target environment...marketing versus competition)
Finally durability wise I've thrown no lugs or had no issues with failures in over 1200 miles on a stock 5.1 and 3000 miles on a CE. I've also spent consistant time well over the max recommended MPH (lake and trail testing) of both of those tracks to test heat build up, top speed, and how that relates to durability. Generally don't run the sleds through rocks and stumps at all out high speed but we all hit stuff under the snow in everyday common mountain free riding yet all of my lugs and screws are still in place. The conclusion there is also no additional risk of failure due to inserting screws.
Now lots of guys are simply trimming their stocker tracks and the known benefit there is mostly related to windage in the limited space of the stock IQ RAW tunnel. You'll see results but you can really feel how much more firm the lug is when you put in the 1" #6 screws. Still flexible and with some throw down at the belt but significantly more solid at the business end. Which in the field netted a higher performance machine.
Rob,
Would you do this on the 07 RMK 600 track as well?
Would you do this on the 07 RMK 600 track as well?
GMCRMK...once you "screw em" they are sure hard to get rid of! Cept when everyone finds out how much happier life is with a good screwing...then they are hard to keep track of! weird
Brandon I've only cut on the 2 ply and the CE tracks for these sleds but based on the theory that there are not excessive lug failures on the Dragons from 09 I'd say go for it. There is no comparison in performance between the stocker and what we do to them. The stock as is sucks so this is simply a step towards better results for next to nothing. If that doesn't last you then can go buy a CE if you require known better performance.
Mine would be cut if it was anyone of the three without hesitation!
Don't know which 600 you have but the magic seems to be at 2.1 for total lug length so if you have the 2 x 144 which was stock on shifts then probably not..but if you have a stock 155 of any version over 2" then I'd do it. Part of the program is a windage advantage and it requires more HP to force your fan to rotate when you have longer lugs. Smaller HP applications do even better because you aren't asking as much from the motor to move the same track around and propel the vehicle.
My experience is that all things that reduce drag in conjunction with all things that promote forward inertia are good for mtn sled performance. Once you cut enough lug off that you can't get bite or snow packing performance then you loose the returns gained from less windage and weight of the rotating mass. Think in terms of balance..to little lug and you spin and make lots of track speed but your forward inertia is handicapped. You also flush out your snow (which is traction) and loose enertia with the results being trenching. Same issue happens with a design that doesn't have enough snow held between the lugs. The higher the hp the more extreem the results. Common on the finger tracks in deep light powder. You could get great deep snow performance from removing strategic lug rows so that more packing snow was trapped in the track creating forward enertia instead of the track digging.
! Cept when everyone finds out how much happier life is with a good screwing...then they are hard to keep track of! weirdBrandon I've only cut on the 2 ply and the CE tracks for these sleds but based on the theory that there are not excessive lug failures on the Dragons from 09 I'd say go for it. There is no comparison in performance between the stocker and what we do to them. The stock as is sucks so this is simply a step towards better results for next to nothing. If that doesn't last you then can go buy a CE if you require known better performance.
Mine would be cut if it was anyone of the three without hesitation!
Don't know which 600 you have but the magic seems to be at 2.1 for total lug length so if you have the 2 x 144 which was stock on shifts then probably not..but if you have a stock 155 of any version over 2" then I'd do it. Part of the program is a windage advantage and it requires more HP to force your fan to rotate when you have longer lugs. Smaller HP applications do even better because you aren't asking as much from the motor to move the same track around and propel the vehicle.
My experience is that all things that reduce drag in conjunction with all things that promote forward inertia are good for mtn sled performance. Once you cut enough lug off that you can't get bite or snow packing performance then you loose the returns gained from less windage and weight of the rotating mass. Think in terms of balance..to little lug and you spin and make lots of track speed but your forward inertia is handicapped. You also flush out your snow (which is traction) and loose enertia with the results being trenching. Same issue happens with a design that doesn't have enough snow held between the lugs. The higher the hp the more extreem the results. Common on the finger tracks in deep light powder. You could get great deep snow performance from removing strategic lug rows so that more packing snow was trapped in the track creating forward enertia instead of the track digging.
P
pura vida
Well-known member
How many screws per lug?
Thanks rob for the detailed posts. so i was thinking two screws per lug? how many did you use?
i am surprised you did this to the CE considering how stiff they already are. or was it done just for the windage issue? i have a ce 144 on my 07 mod but it also has a d&r so clearance is a non-issue.
thanks again.
pv
Thanks rob for the detailed posts. so i was thinking two screws per lug? how many did you use?
i am surprised you did this to the CE considering how stiff they already are. or was it done just for the windage issue? i have a ce 144 on my 07 mod but it also has a d&r so clearance is a non-issue.
thanks again.
pv
Screw Length
Rob,
I appreciate the great info, keep it coming! I checked the local hardware stores and have found the screw that you describe. The only problem is that the shortest they carry them in is 1 5/8". Do you see any problems with running a screw this long?
Rob,
I appreciate the great info, keep it coming! I checked the local hardware stores and have found the screw that you describe. The only problem is that the shortest they carry them in is 1 5/8". Do you see any problems with running a screw this long?
I tried long(1.5") screws like that once with a 2" track. Seemed to make the paddles tear off easier, screw tips came out the base of the paddle. But the trail in to the riding area was pretty rocky and alot of tree roots.
Thanks Rob.
I have the 155 track so it is getting a trim and screw job this week
going riding on thursday(hopefully) so well see how it works.
I have the 155 track so it is getting a trim and screw job this week
going riding on thursday(hopefully) so well see how it works.
The longer the screws the more it changes the flex of each of the paddles. Having not actually installed every configuration that we are discussing it's impossible to say. Go ahead and test if you feel adventuresome and post your results. One thing I do know and it's absolute..there is no deep snow or has been no deep snow (average deep snow conditions of Id, Or, Wy, Mt...where we tested it) sacrefice from trimming to the 2.1 length. I've pretty much concluded that for the chassis we are dealing with and in our environment of riding the lug length with the 1" screws seems to be a great setup.
