That would be the measurement of one board width to tell you how wide your boots can be, thats how I read that, and don't fault it.
its just the sled girth that gets me, which has no effectiveness compared to there numbers
Really Snowest? Where do you guys crap
- Thread starter WyoBoy1000
- Start date
That would be the measurement of one board width to tell you how wide your boots can be, thats how I read that, and don't fault it.
its just the sled girth that gets me, which has no effectiveness compared to there numbers
S
Slick
Well-known member
Wow, maybe start up a review post area where you can decide what should be talked about before the posts show up !!!!
I think it's an interesting thread and topic.
Good question wyoboy
Do you work for the magazine or something? Why are you taking offense to a question about the factual basis of some numbers written there? That's all this is about...pretty simple.
I see you're in I.F.... maybe you DO work for the mag too? If so, sorry... but then perhaps you can explain this?
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
my fatazz is wider then my sled.
H
hatchers
Well-known member
youre canadian, thus you dont even know what an inch is...go back in your igloo and talk real funny while drinking moose piss-shine or whatever you guys do for fun
H
hatchers
Well-known member
you type like steven hawkins.. go write a book on binary word problems or how far you can see in your telescope.. Nerd!
Denial
it tells us how soon the boards and panels hit the snow, the wider it is the lesser of a hill you can sidehill before they start to drag or the sled washes out. Don't get into who can or can't sidehill, I'm talking specifically geometry.
It's snow....not concrete. usually
So, just putting a wide ski stance on a sled would allow it to sidehill to 90 degrees?
What is the "front suspension bolt"? I would like to see a max width measurement of the side panels, a max width of the running boards, and a max width of the tunnel.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
skidoo riders drag leg to slow down
Still no legit answer, (guess its an answer in itself)
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
I am still wondering, what does where someone craps have to do with how wide a sleds running boards are?
R
rmscustom
Well-known member
The answer is... They crap no where near a manufacturer, too many advertising $s could be lost... Did I miss something or where is the review of the 3 snowest staffers that spent the most time on these sleds and picked the winner?
Anytime you want find out, lets ride and I'll show you exactly why. You obviously ride the same areas I do since your 50m away. Anytime and I'll do my best to make it.
Cooke preferably, the horns just don't have much to offer on the extreme side, but if thats where you ride I know a few spots and always trying to find more. (but with the limited amount of snow your track is pretty much a wood chipper in the trees)
Last edited:
S
swrev
Well-known member
Hey Wyo, how narrow did your Cat end up being? Would love to give 'er a ride someday because I agree 100% on the width making a big difference. Was going to "project skinny" my XP, but was looking at my turbo configuration, and it just would not be worth the effort. I would have to reconfigure my turbo also. Have you had a chance to throw a leg over a sled that was only narrowed at the boards? Was thinking of Polaris boards on the XP, but the body would still be wide. May opt for a set of B&M, they have them for $350 now, much cheaper than Skins.
Now back to topic.
The measurements from the magazine, for the most part, were worthless. I rode an XM the otherday. Still has most of the same width issues as the XP and doesn't handle any better than my current setup. Initial tip is easier and that's about it compared to my sled--granted it is not a stock chassis XP. Article was very decieving IMO. The XM is no better than modifying an old XP. I think riders that hated the XP and like the XM, really had to have their blinders on when riding the XP. Just my opinion not that it matters to anyone but me. Can't wait for Polaris to make a motor that lasts. I'll keep waiting or have to visit Kelsey or Indy Dan. Buddies '13 just went down around 300 miles. Don't know all the details yet, but ugh.
Off topic agian...article sucked.
Now back to topic.
The measurements from the magazine, for the most part, were worthless. I rode an XM the otherday. Still has most of the same width issues as the XP and doesn't handle any better than my current setup. Initial tip is easier and that's about it compared to my sled--granted it is not a stock chassis XP. Article was very decieving IMO. The XM is no better than modifying an old XP. I think riders that hated the XP and like the XM, really had to have their blinders on when riding the XP. Just my opinion not that it matters to anyone but me. Can't wait for Polaris to make a motor that lasts. I'll keep waiting or have to visit Kelsey or Indy Dan. Buddies '13 just went down around 300 miles. Don't know all the details yet, but ugh.
Off topic agian...article sucked.
there is a huge difference between an xm and XP. The xp has a heavy counter steer. It turns up hill when on it's side. It wants to stay flat. It feels nose heavy. The xm cured all of that. It feels effortless. When I rode with rassmussen I tried to get it to wash out and couldnt. We played on some pretty good stuff, even side hills with downed trees and humps that I thought fore sure it would stuff the front and wash out but didn't. Polaris has an advantage looking at it but I couldnt find it when I rode the xm.
Bwahahaha, this thread reminds me of 08 or 09 whatever year the XP came out, the SnoWest Deep Powder Challenge was actually held in "deep powder", the XP's went straight up the hill and over the top, a couple of brands barely made it off the staging area before they were a stuck and one brand finally made it near the top after a considerable amount of time had elapsed. One of the losers excuses was they had put their track on backwards and had "too much traction" (LMAO), to avoid further embarassment the following year the "Deep Powder Challenge" was a glorified trail ride-----so much for the Doo bias.
I read that one and thought, wow, impressive. So I found a guy with a new xp, same track but more on the ground with the 16 wide. He was talking it up so I said lets see what they got.
He didn't make the hill and blew over with my skis in the air, hmmm. I have yet to be impressed with a do for anything other than jumping and wheelies, but I haven't rode a xm so I'll give it is due until I do.
Even after skinny'ing my PC (29"),, on the steep slopes where it will wash, the first thing to drag is the belly pan and I have it sucked it in a ways. So I think just the boards will help 50% but not all the way.
To avoid confusion, please stop using the term girth when you mean width. Girth is the measurement around something and not it's width. It's like saying circumference of a circle rather than diameter. two very different measurements.
For what it's worth, I agree that all magazines seem to have a hard time with numbers. There is a chance this was an honest mistake and not a conspiracy, however. Or their measuring procedure changed and they didnt't detail that. It is worth asking the question and is perhaps worth a "letter to the editor" to bring it to their attention so they can clarify, for all readers, in the next issue.
Similar threads
