Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe it’s a couple limiter straps to lower a mountain top kit.Buddy of mine has the new 3.25" on his MT. I ride a Aro3S lowered 3".
Not a report from an owner, but we did switch bikes throughout one ride day. I got to ride it on the trail and then in the powder twice.
On the trail I honestly did not like how much work the MT was to ride compared to my TS. His bike is hot rodded and he is heavier than I am, so maybe it was just all the power and the stiff suspension. There was lots of whoops on the trail and I didn't like his bike at all for that.
On the powder, I climbed up hills in two locations at separate times with my bike, and then switched to his and did the same climbs. WOW I could not believe how much better his bike got up on top of the snow and just pushed you forward. Way better traction than my TS. Again... he has a lot more power, whereas I am all stock. So I do think the power was a factor in how fast it climbed compared to mine. However the way it handled the snow was undeniable.
I'm not ready to sell my TS yet, as I love the lowered kit. But I do have to admit his MT outperforms mine in the deep (where it matters).
I believe it’s a couple limiter straps to lower a mountain top kit.
All 3 of the kits in our group are the 3.25". One is on a 300 2 stroke and it pulls it great. I feel like I can pull a gear higher than I could on my Aro 3. Feels like a lot less rolling resistance and the track hooks up like crazy. The kit feels very playful and handles really well. We are all very happy with them.Norsepeak, were all the mtn tops the 3.25 track? I have report from buddy that the 3.25 is very playful and great in deep but requires more power. Both bikes 450 sx, 129fr yeti could pull a gear higher than mtn top with 3.25. Any thoughts on that? Did the 3.25 require more power yet perform better?
I was hoping wwilf would chime in on this question since he has both but our snow is way less dense than yours. Earlier this season Norsepeak commented it was so dense he didn't even want to ride in it. I've ridden the 129 version and it is very playful and can be light on the ski with minor pressure changes for harder or dense snow. The 126 is negligabley shorter and even with the bigger lugs, they changed the pitch and paddle count so it might not drag down the hp as much as you might think. If I was there with you right now to experience your 7 foot storm I would be able to better Gage your snow density But without knowing I just have to assume it's not like ours so common sense would say you don't need a 3-in track. But I would probably buy the big one anyway and you could always give it a haircut if it feels a bit sluggish compared to your buddies. just grab a razor knife and start cutting the paddle down a bit. You can even try a tapered edge style which may be pretty amazing to retain a 3.25 center lug. I'd be all about that and you can always buy a new track if you decide to go big again. I can guarantee you there's going to be some snow that a bigger paddle is just not going to like. And of course nothing works good everywhere. I've got so many tracks now I don't know what to do with them all but I change them out depending on conditions and for sure about this time of year through June I go shorter lugs and length.throw us up some pics of this crazy storm if you get a chance.Curious if anyone has ridden or gotten feedback on a side by side comparison of the MT 2.5/129 vs. the 3.25/126 on a 450. I realize the snow conditions (depth and density) definitely factor into the equation, but wondering how much difference there is in terms of maneuverability, traction, track speed, climbing, playfulness, etc. Contemplating a MT 450 setup for Sierra Nevada riding which can span heavy cement to lighter density pow.