I have a Rev with a 144" am M1000 with a 153" and the Turbo Dragon with a 163" the 163 will do anything the 144 will do just faster and it gets stuck less/ floats better in the powder (thank you Holz) but the truth is a 144" sled will do just about anything just as well if you can ride it, 99% of it is being able to ride. Now that being said long tracks and turbos are the way, they make up for lack of skills. Now maybe if I build a twin turbo 174 with custom 4" lugs and NOS.................
Give me your opinions on track lengths
- Thread starter xsummit
- Start date
My next sled will have a 174" x 3". I like going slow through the trees and the guys I ride with get tired of digging me out or waiting for me while I dig my self out because I am in some nasty spots.
220
"220...221 whatever it takes"
"220...221 whatever it takes"
After riding a 174 for a day or two you won't even notice the diff between it and the 162 that you were riding before it. If your riding the bottomless stuff and have the power 190+ the 174 is the ticket to the top, and you will never be mad at yourself for making the change.
Twin 174's
Running 20"x174" is great for traction and FLOTATION,it's the most fun I've had riding in the DEEP stuff!
Running 20"x174" is great for traction and FLOTATION,it's the most fun I've had riding in the DEEP stuff!
now thats a track
i hink the fun factor is better with a 146-153 ish length i have neve rode a 174 but a few 163's and i can feel a huge differance in how you can flip it around and jump. if point and shoot is your game go long, if you like to play get a shorter track ...i like my 146 and haven't had too many problems highmarking i do have to find a way to out manuver a longer tracked machine sometimes to get there 
track
I had one of the first 136" (1" 3/16) paddle aggressor tracks, man could I out do my buddies. Then it went 136"x1"1/2, 136x2", 141x2", 151x2", 151x2"1/4, 159x2"1/4, 163x2"1/4, last year 162x3", this year 174x3". I have adjusted each time and will never consider anything less than a 162".
By the way you don't need 200+HP sled (a good running 800 will work) to turn 3" track but you will beat up on alot of 200+HP sleds that run 2"1/2 tracks of the same length.
You kids and your short tracks will have a hard time even track poaching lines all day and keeping up!
It does come down to how you ride. I would never consider chasing coyotes with a 174. But on the same hand I would quit going to the mountain if I had to ride a short track.
I had one of the first 136" (1" 3/16) paddle aggressor tracks, man could I out do my buddies. Then it went 136"x1"1/2, 136x2", 141x2", 151x2", 151x2"1/4, 159x2"1/4, 163x2"1/4, last year 162x3", this year 174x3". I have adjusted each time and will never consider anything less than a 162".
By the way you don't need 200+HP sled (a good running 800 will work) to turn 3" track but you will beat up on alot of 200+HP sleds that run 2"1/2 tracks of the same length.
You kids and your short tracks will have a hard time even track poaching lines all day and keeping up!
It does come down to how you ride. I would never consider chasing coyotes with a 174. But on the same hand I would quit going to the mountain if I had to ride a short track.
the xp800 with a 154 geared down I rode a coupe times last year is exactly what I did the one I just bought and I must say I can get it in almost as many places I can my 1000 with a 162. yeah I might have to work it more but one thing I love doing is dropping cornices and that long 162 would hang a little going off and is a pain in the @$$ to load in the back my truck. I dont think till I get older fatter and lazier I will have longer than a 154.
Similar threads
