And the extra ONE INCH of width is SERIOUSLY worth this hassle??
Upgrading from a 15" Maveric to a 16" Camoplast Extreme??
- Thread starter philsummers21
- Start date
theres only a couple you need to do right close to the foot rests so you dont notice it. Theres threaded nuts welded to the steel pieces where the bulkhead meets the tunnel and the bolt sticks thru you smooth those right down. Its an hour job max to get the front of the bulkhead ready for a 16 wide not inc what you do for the drop brackets.
so for me it would all come down to whether or not I could get the skinz Air Frame boards to work with the Lightweight brackets or not.
The footprint of a 151 x 16 is the same as that of a 159 x 15. So you get more floatation without the extra length.
Other than the few required mods are there any obvious DOWNSIDES to running the 16" wide track?
The following was sent to me privately.....
Hi Christopher -
Before you go with a 16" wide CE ask yourself this question, "What am I gaining with 1" more belt width?"
The reason I say this is that all the 16's I have seen, the paddles do not go to the edge of the belt, they stop in the same place the 15's do. When you are hogging through the power, you're mostly running on the paddles and packing snow between the paddles and the belt. That extra 1" of belt being outside of everything is doing very little in my humble engineering opinion. What it does though, is, it needs to bend and flex. That absorbs a large amount of hysteresis energy, lost horsepower into heat.
The second thing is that you have to accelerate the mass of all the extra material. More lost horsepower.
Third, every 16 wide I have seen is carved up on the edges. This means that it is dragging on the tunnel, more lost horsepower.
Now don't get me wrong, this track will work, but mho is that the 15 wide is a better option, and cheaper too.
Also, the Maverick is junk.
When I first got my Nytro I put a 162 CE on it. My buddy, 40 pounds lighter had the Mav 162 on his Nytro, identical sleds. We were in 2 1/2 feet of pixy dust powder. He has twice the experience I do, has a Jackson Hole hillclimb 1st place trophy under his belt. So anyway, I pulled him out about 6 times that day. My sled walked out of the same places, sometimes pointing up at a steeper angle than his was stuck. Next weekend he had a CE on his sled.
Just FYI. I'm a senior mechanical engineer with over 35 years of sledding under my belt so I definitely don't know everything, but I do feel strongly about this
Hi Christopher -
Before you go with a 16" wide CE ask yourself this question, "What am I gaining with 1" more belt width?"
The reason I say this is that all the 16's I have seen, the paddles do not go to the edge of the belt, they stop in the same place the 15's do. When you are hogging through the power, you're mostly running on the paddles and packing snow between the paddles and the belt. That extra 1" of belt being outside of everything is doing very little in my humble engineering opinion. What it does though, is, it needs to bend and flex. That absorbs a large amount of hysteresis energy, lost horsepower into heat.
The second thing is that you have to accelerate the mass of all the extra material. More lost horsepower.
Third, every 16 wide I have seen is carved up on the edges. This means that it is dragging on the tunnel, more lost horsepower.
Now don't get me wrong, this track will work, but mho is that the 15 wide is a better option, and cheaper too.
Also, the Maverick is junk.
When I first got my Nytro I put a 162 CE on it. My buddy, 40 pounds lighter had the Mav 162 on his Nytro, identical sleds. We were in 2 1/2 feet of pixy dust powder. He has twice the experience I do, has a Jackson Hole hillclimb 1st place trophy under his belt. So anyway, I pulled him out about 6 times that day. My sled walked out of the same places, sometimes pointing up at a steeper angle than his was stuck. Next weekend he had a CE on his sled.
Just FYI. I'm a senior mechanical engineer with over 35 years of sledding under my belt so I definitely don't know everything, but I do feel strongly about this
The 15 will handle better then the 16. the 16 will outperfom the 15 in the deep and steep. Honestly id just run a 15x whatever length fits your riding style. 2.5CE the difference is not just the 1/4 more on the CE vs the maverick its the lug design and stiffness as well. Id like to see a 3" or 2 3/4" CE in a 15wide. i personally don't think the pros out weigh the cost and time to fit the 16 instead of a 15 into a stock tunnel and drop brackets.
Another comment from a Private Message.
My "theory", as I have no empirical proof, is that your "floatation" is coming from the compaction of snow between the paddles and the belt. Belt width existing outside any paddles is not providing any appreciable floatation. The exception to this would be when you attain perpendicular velocity in relation to the surface of the snow. So like a drop off a cornice or something similiar. When you attain a reasonable perpendicular velocity to the surface of the snow, then that extra belt width will provide extra "floatation." Beyond that scenario, if you consider the relative velocity of the paddles contacting the snow under full throttle, it is improbable that the outside edges of a 16 wide belt are acting in any manner to assist "floatation." Forward propulsion of the snowmobile is dependant on a firm and resistant base to push against. In deep powder snow this is achieved by many paddles grabbing the snow, compacting the snow, pushing the snow to the rear of the sled and repeat, and repeat. This is why long tracks work so well (imho, once again). They pack the snow over and over, giving that firm base. Ever dig in avalanche snow..?? It's very firm right. The air has been beat out of it and the snow crystals melt and re-freeze together at a very fast rate. Yes, a 16 wide has a slightly larger area equating to a slightly larger normal force that helps preventing trenching. This is the basis of static bouyancy (weight of mass displaced vs weight of mass supported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy) but I think that little extra bouyancy is only noticed at very low ground speeds (almost static) and is a very marginal force in relation to the forces of paddles compacting and pushing snow out the back of the sled.
I'm probably getting too far into this, but my mechanical mind needs to draw free body diagrams, look at the lines of force, and then explain the dynamics of the "system." I wish we could talk with the folks at Camoplast. I bet the engineers there could really enlilghten us on the subject. Maybe you have the connections to make that happen..??? That would be quite interesting.
So, hope I didnt' waist too much of your time on this. But without any empirical evidence to support the 16 wide, and lots of engineering practicality to refute it, I cannot advocate it being a better option over the cheaper, more efficient 15" tracks we have now. A new design 16 wide could change this, however.
If you have other peoples' explanations on 16's, I wouldn't mind hearing them. Heck, I may be completely wrong. Always nice to get second opinions.
Happy track shopping..??
My "theory", as I have no empirical proof, is that your "floatation" is coming from the compaction of snow between the paddles and the belt. Belt width existing outside any paddles is not providing any appreciable floatation. The exception to this would be when you attain perpendicular velocity in relation to the surface of the snow. So like a drop off a cornice or something similiar. When you attain a reasonable perpendicular velocity to the surface of the snow, then that extra belt width will provide extra "floatation." Beyond that scenario, if you consider the relative velocity of the paddles contacting the snow under full throttle, it is improbable that the outside edges of a 16 wide belt are acting in any manner to assist "floatation." Forward propulsion of the snowmobile is dependant on a firm and resistant base to push against. In deep powder snow this is achieved by many paddles grabbing the snow, compacting the snow, pushing the snow to the rear of the sled and repeat, and repeat. This is why long tracks work so well (imho, once again). They pack the snow over and over, giving that firm base. Ever dig in avalanche snow..?? It's very firm right. The air has been beat out of it and the snow crystals melt and re-freeze together at a very fast rate. Yes, a 16 wide has a slightly larger area equating to a slightly larger normal force that helps preventing trenching. This is the basis of static bouyancy (weight of mass displaced vs weight of mass supported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy) but I think that little extra bouyancy is only noticed at very low ground speeds (almost static) and is a very marginal force in relation to the forces of paddles compacting and pushing snow out the back of the sled.
I'm probably getting too far into this, but my mechanical mind needs to draw free body diagrams, look at the lines of force, and then explain the dynamics of the "system." I wish we could talk with the folks at Camoplast. I bet the engineers there could really enlilghten us on the subject. Maybe you have the connections to make that happen..??? That would be quite interesting.
So, hope I didnt' waist too much of your time on this. But without any empirical evidence to support the 16 wide, and lots of engineering practicality to refute it, I cannot advocate it being a better option over the cheaper, more efficient 15" tracks we have now. A new design 16 wide could change this, however.
If you have other peoples' explanations on 16's, I wouldn't mind hearing them. Heck, I may be completely wrong. Always nice to get second opinions.
Happy track shopping..??
Great info but it goes back to why skidoo stopped porting their track from the factory. Even if the lug doesnt go to the edge there is still extra footprint. The porting cuts weight but reduces footprint and causes the sled to not climb as high...according to skidoo testing. The track rubbing on the side is a result of bad preparation to fit the wider track. Just my .02 not trying to step on toes.
-Justin
Trying to make a fully informed decision here by gathering all the information I can.
The 16 wides perform better theres really not an arguable comment here. just like the 15s out perform the old 14 wide. But for putting the 16 into a stock nytro tunnel is work. and yes extra cash for the drop brackets and the track. so Is another inch wider worth the extra $175. Thats the only question to be asked. Also if you have a hard time throwing the sled around now you probably dont want to go to a wider track as it will effect its handling.
I've gone back to 15" tracks on all my sleds. I prefer the handling over the 16" and turboed up you can go just as high and as far IMO. On a Nytro I wouldn't do a 16 even though its possible.
JMO
M5
JMO
M5
Similar threads
