Snowchecked a Pro-RMK, should I go with the Cammo Challenger Extreme?

[towngrunt]

I Recently checked a Pro-RMK and was considering putting the Cammo challenger Extreme track on. I currently have a 08 and 09 Dragon and have considered putting a track on these. Was wondering if this track will fit on the new chassis? I have heard nothing but positive about this track.

 

[rmkboxer]

I'm sure it will help the pro rmk as it did the dragon, hands down the best thing I did to mine.

 

[catmanm8]

How is it in the early fluff powder?? Should a guy wait till snow sets up??

 

[sled-fiend]

I'm curious as well

 

[theultrarider]

I haven't run an extreme on a 2011 obviously, but on my edge, and my buddies dragons, the extreme was amazing in the dry light fluff. A very pleasant surprise. We did not expect a track that stiff to peerform that well in the fluff. It works as well or better than the 5.1 did and in all other conditions it worked way better than the 5.1's did. I have no reason to believe it would not do the same for the new pro rmk's. Really tempted to put one on my new ride before it ever hits the snow.

 

[catmanm8]

Sounds great...lets hear some more!!

 

[mountainhorse]

Head to head on identical sleds in light "blower" powder.. the Camo would trench a bit... The 5.1 got on the snow better... both 2.86" pitch 163"

In all other conditions the CE 2.5" was a better track IMO...

My concern is the lack of clearance for the 2.5" track... I've written lots on this topic on the forums here... have a look.

Some will chime in and say they had no problems with the CE 2.5" with the stock setup... but... what did they compare it to??? Another CE 2.5 WITH proper clearance? Was it on a turbo sled that has more ability to overcome the drag? What was the belt/clutch temp before/after?

I'd run 7 tooth drivers and the 156" OR 162" CE (not a type-o)depending on the length you ordered. These lengths/drivers will use the Stock rails. More clearance = less HP robbed from the motor and clutches.

With the CE 2.5 (which is a 2 ply track... more thickness in belting too)... the track to tunnel-roof clearance is LESS than 1/4"... pretty poor... Heck, the stock Single ply 2.4" (actually about 2.3) barely has enough clearance.

There are many different "nit pickey" arguments against the 7 tooth drivers like "It has more rolling resistance" OR "the approach angle is changed"... ETC.... none of which IMO has significance that would outweigh the increased performance from diminished drag that is the result of more clearance.

Not rubbing is NO criteria for evaluating whether a track fits.

No D&R's avail for this chassis yet... It is a shorter chaincase than the current IQ's.

 

[AndrettiDog]

mountainhorse is right on. The 5.1 is better in the really light fluff. I have the CE on my 09 D8 and it is great in everything but the really light stuff. I had to move my limiter strap forward all the way so that the transfer worked a little better. The ski pressure wasn't too big of an issue and my Fox Float Evol's handle that just fine. I'm not in the super light powder near as much as I wish I was and I live in Colorado (dry powder). The CE works great. It weighs a little more (5.5 lbs).

 

[mountainhorse]

The CE 2.5 actually weighs about 9 lbs more than the single ply series 5.1 that is used on the dragons and new Pro-RMKs

 

[Scott]

This whole new chassis and skid will be much different than the Dragon, and therefore the negative deep dry powder problems on the CE 2.5" lug track, although few, that have been spoken about here may be negated by this new chassis.

 

[mountainhorse]

Are you getting a CE 2.5" Scott?

Winter Brew on the forums here (Paul) has better prices than Tracks USA on these.

What length track did you go with?

If you do the CE... I Highly recommend the 156" or the 162" with the 7 tooth drivers

 

[Scott]

Eric, did you get my text message on Saturday?


Well, that is what I WOULD have done. I decided to ride the old iron for one more year. I was headed for a 155" chassis, so the 156 would have been what I would have chosen.

I'll buy a new sled after I sell my current one, whenever that may be.

 

[440dart]

after watching several 4strokes take off from a dead stop and barely trench compared to almost getting stuck from a dead stop weight a ton less then a rx1 i knew it was time for a change to a camo. by far the best thing you can do to these sleds, i dont know where these guys get its better in fluff haha it sucked every where, 153 sleds were staying with me once i made the switch it was more like wait for them to get stuck then creep rite up next to them on the hill ask if they need help then turn back up the hill go up a bunch more with the stocker they would be right there with me

 

[mountainhorse]

440... I think a 174" in any paddle would do pretty good in the fluff...

Length for length... the CE does not do as well as the 5.1 on the same sled in light, fluffy pow. My 2 cents.

 

[diamonddave]

Answer....Yes.

 

[rmkboxer]

I've seen many posts saying you can't put it on because of clearance. I have had no issues, it out performs the stock track and have not ran against any others with a drop or smaller drivers

 

[AKSNOWRIDER]

I run the extreme, and in every type of snow i have ridden it in(over 8 riding areas)there is only 1 place the stock 5.1 can even come close to the CE 2.5..every where else the CE puts a hurting on the 5.1 even in great champayne powder...but thats just what I have seen here the last 2 seasons...

 

[IceCap]

Mountainhorse, how much more clearance does the 7 tooth 3.0" pitch drivers give versus the stock 8 tooth 2.86" drivers?

 

[theultrarider]

Mountainhorse, how much more clearance does the 7 tooth 3.0" pitch drivers give versus the stock 8 tooth 2.86" drivers?

They are alittle over 1/2" smaller DIAMETER. So about 1/4" I used 7 tooth 3.0's when I put the camox under my edge.

 

[mountainhorse]

What He said^^^

That MORE than doubles the clearance compared to running the 8 tooth 2.86" pitch drivers with the 2.5" CE track.