Let The Industry Track Wars Begin

[ghost rider]

Now with skidoo stepping up there game and building an awesome 174X3 that will be a game changer in the steep and deep. I think this sled will kill-it in the trees as well. So what length should POLARIS build to put under there 15' or 16' sled?

I'm in the process of getting a custom one-off Polaris 2.4 right now. I have figured out how much longer of track I need to get my sled to do what I want it to. So what do you guys think us Polaris guys need for track size to try and keep up with Doo 174's?

 

[volcano buster]

So what do you guys think us Polaris guys need for track size to try and keep up with Doo 174's?

121"

 

[kiliki]

an 800 motor would be a good start.
along with a chassis with good bumpers, no need for new A arms with good Elmer glue or upper Jack shaft bearings. along with tunnel supports and drive shaft supports would be nice. a tps and good fuel injection set up on on the list of many items. motors to last over 2k and a warrantee to cover the 4 weeks in Jan or Feb you will be with out a ride due to back order of your motor.
O as for track the pro is so light i think the 121 is the bomb.
this thread is as pointless as a rmk 800 with 3000K club and not only listing your upgrades at 2k but posting about it.

 

[ullose272]

156 x3? seriously i go everywhere my 16x track buddies go with my stock 155. id rather have a nimble sled than a tractor

 

[mountainhorse]

It all depends on the riding you do.

IMO...

A 174" x 3" x 16" will have its strengths and weaknesses. Longer, heavier and will push the sled around more than it's predecessors.

If your goal is more deep snow climbing... then that kind of track makes sense.

If you want more maneuverability a 2.25" - 2.5" lug track makes sense and will have more a "Swiss Army Knife" broad spectrum appeal.

Heck... the majors just offered the tall lug tracks as an option on a factory sled this year...Lets wait till Januarary comes around for the real reports, with some considerable riding time, are out from the average consumer out there.... and THEN revisit this question.




.

 

[Dogmeat]

I think Polaris needs to fix their motor issues before worrying about adding more track

 

[05900]

Now with skidoo stepping up there game and building an awesome 174X3 that will be a game changer in the steep and deep. I think this sled will kill-it in the trees as well. So what length should POLARIS build to put under there 15' or 16' sled?

I'm in the process of getting a custom one-off Polaris 2.4 right now. I have figured out how much longer of track I need to get my sled to do what I want it to. So what do you guys think us Polaris guys need for track size to try and keep up with Doo 174's?

Step up the game by a bolt on mod.....sounds like Ski Doo
174x3 is old news not really awesome news
Game changed in '05 with 166" Polaris ...viola 163's everywhere
It'll kill trees alright every time it blows a turn.
Wait until next March and see how many keep 'em
163x3 will outperform 174 in rideability.

 

[rmscustom]

IMHO The 174''x3'' Doo is offering is a sales gimmick and 90% of the people that buy them would be better served by shorter lug and track...
Big sells be it HP or track length no matter if its better or not and its usually consumed by the most inexperienced riders. JMO

 

[jgd]

This argument comes up whenever a longer track makes the scene. Think back to 136 vs 144, 144 vs 151/156/159, etc. Many caught flack for going to a 163. For whatever reason, there is always some resistance in the mtn community to accept a longer track. Ski Doo stepped up and did a lot of R&D to introduce their latest gimmick. I’m glad that they did. Polaris needed a push, as they seem a little preoccupied with their other lines of business and became complacent in the mtn segment. Is the 174 a "too long, squids only track?" I doubt it…

 

[BILTIT]

Only issues I have with the 174's (163 is pushing it too) is fitting them in an enclosed or sled deck. The enclosed trailer that used to fit 4 sleds won't with a 174 in there now lol.

I also think it will make things too easy, too many people going where they shouldn't because a stock long sled will do it fairly easy. We are already seeing a huge increase in the traffic at the normal areas that are ridden and it's only going to get worse I am afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr. Evil]

A 169" would be nice. Same lug.

 

[AndrettiDog]

I haven't even gone to a 163 yet. I'm happy with the 155. My type of riding works well with a 155. I have ridden a 163, but feel the 155 serves better. Who knows, I might jump up to a 163, but not a 174. I agree with whoever said that our current tracks are getting us there now. I'm turbo'd so it works.

 

[OuraySledder]

I am sticking with the 155 length myslef. I have ridden the 162/3 sleds, and ridden with them. I think the advantage is pretty marginal, same with the 16" wide Doo gimmick. 174 would be nice on just a few select days, otherwise I suspect it is going to be a pain. People have to remember, braking traction, spinning the track, is what it takes to manuver a sled. Too much traction is going to make it difficult to manuver. Ohhhh but I forgot, the t-motion gimmick will solve that..... right?

 

[snowmobiler]

So what do you guys think us Polaris guys need for track size to try and keep up with Doo 174's?

174 with a turbo

 

[POLZIN]

174 X 3 = shortcut to learning how to ride

 

[geo]

If you take the 174x16 out of the T3 package (from a short track guys point of view), it's a big step for the Doo camp imo.

As for the track wars, it may never end. 3.2" and double factory scratchers is probably next lol.

For us old guys that learned to maneuver a sled with instant track speed in time with the bars, enjoy the feeling of ALMOST losing momentum and use our learned skills to get out of that situation, it may never be our cup of tea.
But these tracks are here to stay imo. Groomed trails to the alpine and widely spaced trees in the sub-alpine has allowed this evolution. Riders will adapt to steering with less aggressive throttle. Ski's will go a full 90 degrees and keels will get deeper. Yamaha's power steering will be copied and become a standard. New gen enclosed trailers will require a special licence to operate lol. Clip on clearance lights will be added to snow check incentives lol. New gen of riders will have to carry saws to open up the old lower elevation trails lol.

It may be funny to read in 10 yrs. about how to install larger drivers and taller gearing to mod a sled with a T2.5 package before it hits the snow lol.

 

[Powderforlife907]

I couldn't imagine riding a 174... I find a 162/3 to long unless I am hill climbing all day.

 

[TRS]

I am sticking with the 155 length myslef. I have ridden the 162/3 sleds, and ridden with them. I think the advantage is pretty marginal, same with the 16" wide Doo gimmick. 174 would be nice on just a few select days, otherwise I suspect it is going to be a pain. People have to remember, braking traction, spinning the track, is what it takes to manuver a sled. Too much traction is going to make it difficult to manuver. Ohhhh but I forgot, the t-motion gimmick will solve that..... right?

Maybe you should come and ride with a 550f sporting a 163x2.5, it may change your mind on what it takes to maneuver in the trees.

 

[OuraySledder]

Maybe you should come and ride with a 550f sporting a 163x2.5, it may change your mind on what it takes to maneuver in the trees.

That would be pointless, because I would never ride a 550f, talk about a one trick pony...

 

[TRS]

That would be pointless, because I would never ride a 550f, talk about a one trick pony...

OK, I'll ride it.