I don't buy the "foot print" argument however. Not as much of a factor on a spinning track as a person might believe.
And the track push comments in the first post are related to track length... compare the 3"-lug XP 174 to a 3"-lug 162 and see what those feel like in terms of "push"?
A 165 Doo Vs a 163 Polairs... more like it... especially since the do has 7 less rows of paddles, thus a weight advantage to start with in those two lengths, so a 163 3"-lug Poo Track... no weight advantage over the 165" track .
With less fuel and a shorter track on the G4.... that would account for at least a 16 lb difference... IMO.
Still, pretty close these days.
We'll see how it plays out in the hands of non-sponsored/non-media riders this season for production/consumer sleds. I have no doubt, with that 80mm stroke that the Doo will have the power advantage... but not sure about the comparison in the technical situations where a more compact engine with a 10mm shorter stroke and less recip mass will have less induced gyroscopic effect on the chassis.
I hope that mtnpull has some of these units to chime in on this thread after some riding.... He seems to have a realistic view of this kind of stuff
Either way... I still believe that the new Doo is the technological benchmark for innovation in mountain sleds.
Bring on the snow!!
.
.
And the track push comments in the first post are related to track length... compare the 3"-lug XP 174 to a 3"-lug 162 and see what those feel like in terms of "push"?
A 165 Doo Vs a 163 Polairs... more like it... especially since the do has 7 less rows of paddles, thus a weight advantage to start with in those two lengths, so a 163 3"-lug Poo Track... no weight advantage over the 165" track .
With less fuel and a shorter track on the G4.... that would account for at least a 16 lb difference... IMO.
Still, pretty close these days.
We'll see how it plays out in the hands of non-sponsored/non-media riders this season for production/consumer sleds. I have no doubt, with that 80mm stroke that the Doo will have the power advantage... but not sure about the comparison in the technical situations where a more compact engine with a 10mm shorter stroke and less recip mass will have less induced gyroscopic effect on the chassis.
I hope that mtnpull has some of these units to chime in on this thread after some riding.... He seems to have a realistic view of this kind of stuff
Either way... I still believe that the new Doo is the technological benchmark for innovation in mountain sleds.
Bring on the snow!!
.
.
Last edited: