Good topic for discussion... in this new world of wide pitch tracks.
Ski Doo, with the release of the 2017 G4 Summit platform, has made another industry first with the use of the 3.5"-Pitch track (pitch=space between paddle centers)...this new a 22% increase in space between the paddles... and driver window length.
Opening up the pitch ... is certainly a way to lighten a track...AND... possibly change some other performance characteristics of the track.
I'm wondering if the 3.5" pitch is a "plus" or a "minus".... less paddles on the snow, and also less shear stress on the snow with each "bite" of the paddles...but what is the tipping point for number of paddles in the snow vs traction and forward progress of the sled???
In the words of BRP
New 3.5 in. (9 cm) pitch reduces weight, and keeps snow between lugs for added performance.
A 165 is actually a 164.5" track at 3.5" pitch... which translates to 47 rows of paddles.
A 163" track, at 2.86" pitch is 163.2" actual... 57 rows of paddles.
Say, for arguments sake, that 50% of the paddles are in the snow...
That puts 23 rows of paddles in the snow for the 165" and 28 rows of paddles in the snow for the 162"...
What are the performance aspects of this change?
How does snow type affect this etc etc.???
Given the same track track design... say the new Conquer 280... one in a 156" x 15" x 2.8"-lug w/3"-pitch... and a 154" x 15" x 2.8"-lug w/3.5" pitch...same paddles, same duro, same belting, same clips... (or a 165" vs. 163 Conquer 280 15")
All other things equal on the sled... save the different pitches...
On a nice fresh bottomless 'blower' day, which one will trench more?
What if that were bottomless fresh coastal snow, which would trench more??
What is the "optimal" pitch for a given paddle design... say in deep 'blower' pow... or in Coastal snow... what would give you the best "swiss army knife" kind of compromise, taking ONLY pitch into consideration.
HMMMMM????
POWDERMAX™ LIGHT TRACK WITH FLEXEDGE
.
.
Last edited: