x3 or Wait for Conquer 280

[Sage Crusher]

They aren't going from 8T to 7T. Going from 7T 2.86 to 7T 3.0, so the approach angle will be ever so slightly better.

7T is 7T right? Pitch is not going to change an approach angle angle ( track to the snow horizontal surface)- or am I missing something?

 

[LoudHandle]

7T is 7T right? Pitch is not going to change an approach angle angle ( track to the snow horizontal surface)- or am I missing something?

Wrong, however small, the 7T 2.86" pitch's diameter is roughly 6.372" at the track cord. The 7T 3" pitch's diameter is roughly 6.684" at the track cord. With the change in diameter it does and will effectively change the track approach angle. Although only about half a degree to one degree depending on exact geometry and whether you have readjusted the limiter strap setting. For this example. Most would likely dismiss the difference as inconsequential, I'll leave that up to you.

 

[niner]

Will the 165 conquer fit in the 163? Is there enough adjustment to make up the difference?

 

[tdbaugha]

Will the 165 conquer fit in the 163? Is there enough adjustment to make up the difference?

I would think it would considering a 156 fits in a Pro chassis. Which originally had a 154 in it with larger 8t drivers.

163 with smaller 7t drivers to 165 with larger 6t drivers should fit or be darn close.

 

[roni87]

165

The 7t 3.0 drivers are basically the same diameter as 6t 3.5p

 

[NWaxys]

So can any one report on the 2.8?

 

[sledheader]

So can any one report on the 2.8?

Other than "It looks like it will work", I think only a select few can report

 

[sno*jet]

whats appealing about this conquerer besides weight?

polaris tried some lighter designs of a 2" back in the day but none were as good as the oldschool challenger in the pow...

 

[ullose272]

Well the paddle dsign looks to be close to the powerclaw. And its been a better track for a while

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[NWaxys]

Buddy spoke with Brandt on this... He says he will take the 2.8 or 2.6 before the 3" any day.

 

[AKFULLTHROTTLE]

Ya that is what he said to me as well... For me and my snow condition's the 3" out performs the 2.6 every time expect the hard pack but that's not why I ride.

 

[Spaarky]

So are you saying Burandt rides a lot of hard pack? LMAO

The snow in Colorado, especially that area is different. The 3" digs, where the 2.6 or even old 2.4 tend to float better. It also depends on the type of riding you do.

 

[NWaxys]

We spend most our time in neck deep baby powder my 2.6 and 3" last year honestly felt no diff other than 3" does trench just a bit more. My buddy has 3" also and there was no place he could go that I couldn't either on my 2.6. Only reason my 3" beat my 2.6 the was I had full shock set up and springs w 2 more # boost as well. Just my opinion. I'm sticking w 2.6 on Polaris till I see a major diff. Now the new 850 3" doo is diff story. I'll have it on my deck next year too

 

[AKFULLTHROTTLE]

So are you saying Burandt rides a lot of hard pack? LMAO

The snow in Colorado, especially that area is different. The 3" digs, where the 2.6 or even old 2.4 tend to float better. It also depends on the type of riding you do.

If that's what you take from so be it..

Just because Chris says so does not make it true for me... For our snow and tight back country tree riding the 3" has been out performing the 2.6 side by side. Of course it is hard to get a perfect test with rider abilities and weight but from what I have seen I prefer the 3".

I am saying my 3" in a more set up snow does not get as much traction as the 2.6 or even 2.4.

Now once we started boosting sleds the 3" shinned even more. Now with less track speed I believe the 2.6/2.5 did do better as it did not trench as the 3" did. But given track speed or more HP the 3" will dig to any limits and keep going.

With the 2.8 being so much lighter the N/A sled will gain more track speed and obtain more push from the taller lug pattern. This should make for a awesome track.

 

[CO 2.0]

My 3" axys track trenched bad in light Colorado pow last year, that's why I put the 3" powerclaw on it. Track is so much better. And the 2.4 15 pro that rode with me last year was trenching to China. Even with the added weight of the 3" powerclaw, it was a game changer on my sled. The 2.8 Camso looks like it will be a sweet track if it holds up to abuse. The axys 3" breaks down much quicker than the 3" powerclaw.

 

[szotty]

So to use the new track do u have to swap to 3" drivers if have a 2.6 track now ? And will it be center ported like the Polaris track is

 

[mountainhorse]

Yes, you will need to swap drivers to use the 280 track if you currently have the Polaris sieres-6 with 2.6"-lugs... which uses 2.86" pitch drivers.

It is a straight forward setup.

The track is center ported for the polaris configuration.

You can use the AVID driver with center port teeth f you don't want to trim your rails to run the AVID combo style drivers.

Heres a photo from TrackUSA.

.

 

[BILTIT]

My 3" axys track trenched bad in light Colorado pow last year, that's why I put the 3" powerclaw on it. Track is so much better. And the 2.4 15 pro that rode with me last year was trenching to China. Even with the added weight of the 3" powerclaw, it was a game changer on my sled. The 2.8 Camso looks like it will be a sweet track if it holds up to abuse. The axys 3" breaks down much quicker than the 3" powerclaw.

Glad to see another who loves the 3" PC like i do.

I have run all three lug sizes of the PC track and the 3" works the best, IMO (even on a wee little 155").

 

[Robbie]

New vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4TA-WiX238

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b4TA-WiX238" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[goridedoo]

What are thoughts on driver setup with this track? Will 8 tooth clear? Advantages/dissadvantages to going to 6 tooth 3.5"pitch?