Ported VS Non Ported Tracks

[oridaman]

Interested in the opinions of others on this subject. My search on Snowest produced the following:
Non-Ported Track This was another surprise the Ski-Doo sprung on us. “It was simply a floatability issue,” Ski-Doo’s Steve Cowing told us. Ski-Doo first introduced ported tracks on its Summits three seasons ago but is doing away with that version of the PowderMax on all its Summits for 2011. The goal is improved flotation and climbing with the non ported PowderMax. Ski-Doo says by eliminating the holes, it adds a square-foot of track surface. Ski-Doo testing showed the non-ported sleds consistently climbed 100-150 feet higher/farther than the ported version.

The first "Red Flag" I experienced with the Ported Track on my 2009 XP 163"
was crossing water. Very surprised that the sled felt like it was Dragging/sinking when skipping a small pond. OF Course that's not snow, SO, I brushed it off and didn't think any thing in regards to the Same physics related to crossing snow.
JUMP forward to (two weeks ago) Mnt St Helens, riding my 163" (With SLP kit <160+ horse>) against an Stock E-tech 154" track (non ported, of course) OUR intent was to test the HP one sled against the other (BY switching sleds, each rider assessing which he felt was the stronger pull) The snow was deep enough that the challenge moved to; "JUST" making it to the top AND having to poach lines to get there.
THIS is where the differences in the track really opened my eyes.
First Pull: Both sleds high marked close to the same elevation (not much of a try)
Second Pull: Poaching the previous line, the 154" made the top with a slight Dog leg manuever 3/4 of the way up. 163" made it about 1/2 way.
It took three more attempts (Poaching the same line) to get the 163" over the top.
These Pulls had NOTHING to do with HP, clutching, etc. This was Pure "foot print" based, because of the condition of the snow (we were leaving 5' deep trenches, the last 20 yards of the climb) Both sleds pulling a solid 8200 RPM all through the climb.
SO, the intrigue continues. Put a 163" NON Ported track on the '09 last night. We will run the machines again tomorrow 12/31/2010 and see how much difference there is between the two machines.

 

[winter brew]

Keep us posted, thanks for the comparison....and JFYI, the e-tec will work best at 7900-8000....above that power drops dramatically unlike the p-tek.
I am thinking of a "mild" track port on my e-tec, mainly for cooling but not enough to effect flotation like the overly ported '07 and newer doo track. The '06 Doo track was a happy medium IMO....then they went crazy with bigger holes in '07.

 

[hatchers]

i had two identical 04 revs...ported one first to guage the difference, it was huge in regard to keeping the skid free of loaded snow (weight)...huge!!

with that said, i wont port a boosted sled, one less thing to worry about, and another 10-20lbs weight loss or added 10hp is not something i think about anymore

 

[fatguy1]

SO, the intrigue continues. Put a 163" NON Ported track on the '09 last night. We will run the machines again tomorrow 12/31/2010 and see how much difference there is between the two machines.

So How did the Testing work out???, I was riding my 08 XP with a 163" ported track against my buddies brand new 2011 XP 163" non-ported E-TEC over christmas and it was sick.

His trench was 1/2 the depth of mine if not less. My skis never touched the snow the whole way up the hill and you could see where his did touch the snow from time to time.

 

[Jaynelson]

I'm gonna take a different road and say Doo runs whatever camo (or whoever) will give them a good price on and then designs marketing claims to fit that descision. Does anyone think they actually believed the Challenger Lite ala 07 X and XRS was a great deep snow track?