snopro
Active VIP Member
I'm drinking your kool....errr...doolaide Tee
2015 Summit X 163/174 T3 Package Video
- Thread starter norona
- Start date
teeroy
Active VIP Member
hahaha....just being realistic man, nowhere can you substitute an aluminum part for steel and be anywhere close for weight.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #23
norona
Active VIP Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,146
- Reaction score
- 7,929
- Location
- North Vancouver
- Website
- www.noronalife.com
Yes Guys I may be wrong on the rails, sometimes when we are learning stuff, things get said, as we get schooled on all sleds and it is easy to mix things up so I will confirm back and make sure I correct my mistakes, thanks for your understanding and sorry if I confused anyone. cheers dave
teeroy
Active VIP Member
it's all good Dave, thanks for the vid.
snopro
Active VIP Member
Thanks for the clarification Dave!
Lund
Active VIP Member
OMG, not picking on you norona but did i hear that correctly....138Lbs....holycrap your just alittle heavier then my wife....hahaha
I kinda figured BRP was building sleds for the lightweights of this world.
Anyhow your vids are always good to watch, i especially like your trials bike one's are realy good as i find most sleddings vids boring, there all the same.
Thanks for your PR with BRP.
I kinda figured BRP was building sleds for the lightweights of this world.
Anyhow your vids are always good to watch, i especially like your trials bike one's are realy good as i find most sleddings vids boring, there all the same.
Thanks for your PR with BRP.
Last edited:
Thank you for sharing your amazing viewpoint and further enriching this thread!
Lund
Active VIP Member
It was not meant to be a bad thing, i was just suprised. That all.
I am wondering though, is the tunnel a ONE piece tunnel specifically for the 174 or is it caped as alot of past designs from BRP.
I am interested to know also if BRP plans atleast to offer a wheel kit for the extra long rails, as most of us that use the 174s know slidder wear is a big issue,
especially with 3" lugs.
BTW scratchers alone don't cut it with such a track, i have 3 years experience with a 174, 3" and 2.5".
Last edited:
snopro
Active VIP Member
I am also wondering about slider wear with just those scratchers. I know Baker sets most of his 3"x174" tracks with scratchers on the ski's and the rails.
I think it will be ok. It's pretty far forward.
Remember the longer the rails, the more surface area/less pressure on the sliders. 3" height is a long way from the ground, but only 1/2" difference from the next size down and I haven't heard of any problems yet with the 2.5
Remember the longer the rails, the more surface area/less pressure on the sliders. 3" height is a long way from the ground, but only 1/2" difference from the next size down and I haven't heard of any problems yet with the 2.5
pfi572
Active VIP Member
Its only about 3/8 "at most" of a inch but it does make a big difference for whatever reason. Short trails to deep and loose snow no problem. Longer trails that are groomed they will disappear. (hyfax)
Lund
Active VIP Member
We all have to do a certain amount of trail like it or not. The 2.5" is FAR better then the 3" when it comes to slidder durability. But neither the 2.5" or the 3" are very trail friendly and slidder wear IS an issue on both. I've ran both track size with 2 sets of scratcher's and wear is still a problem, the only real help are extra wheels combined with scratchers.
The amount of weight distributed has little to nothing to do with the wear factor of slidders...that is BS. The extra length causes a WAVE effect as your traveling down a trail. The only way to prevent this wave effect is to travel down trails at an extremely low speeds.
This wave effect is caused by having such a long unsupported track, all track length do it but the longer the track the worst it gets. What happens the track waves under the slidder causing spot wear points and eventually your slidder looks like you took it through a band saw with no guide. The running surface has high and low spots the entire length. On a track with big lugs this happen rapidly as the snow cannot protect the slidders.
The amount of weight distributed has little to nothing to do with the wear factor of slidders...that is BS. The extra length causes a WAVE effect as your traveling down a trail. The only way to prevent this wave effect is to travel down trails at an extremely low speeds.
This wave effect is caused by having such a long unsupported track, all track length do it but the longer the track the worst it gets. What happens the track waves under the slidder causing spot wear points and eventually your slidder looks like you took it through a band saw with no guide. The running surface has high and low spots the entire length. On a track with big lugs this happen rapidly as the snow cannot protect the slidders.
Lund
Active VIP Member
I do have another question regarding this 174 setup from BRP.
At CR, the 174" mod has been done since the 174 was first introduced.
Iceage rails are the only rails used because they are the only rails that can take the load that the 174 gives without bending.
The Iceage rails are VERY strong and have alot of backbone and spring in their design, what did BRP do to their rails that they figure that it can take the stress the 174" track will apply?
Looking at the vid. i see nothing special about these rails, actually they seem flimsy and weak with little backbone compared to Iceage.
BTW, inner 2wheel setup on a 174, doesnt work very well. The 3wheel gives much better support for that length to control track wave thus improving over all track speed, especially in climbs.
At CR, the 174" mod has been done since the 174 was first introduced.
Iceage rails are the only rails used because they are the only rails that can take the load that the 174 gives without bending.
The Iceage rails are VERY strong and have alot of backbone and spring in their design, what did BRP do to their rails that they figure that it can take the stress the 174" track will apply?
Looking at the vid. i see nothing special about these rails, actually they seem flimsy and weak with little backbone compared to Iceage.
BTW, inner 2wheel setup on a 174, doesnt work very well. The 3wheel gives much better support for that length to control track wave thus improving over all track speed, especially in climbs.
maxwell
Active VIP Member
Ice age rails look beefy but they are still weak in the high stress point just under the rear upper wheels. I've bent a few ice age rails and a few stock rails an they all bend in the same spot. What helps with the longer rails is lots of cross shafts. I will be adding another cross shaft and freeride rail stiffeners to my 174 t3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
But the T3 rails are titanium... Didn't you read above?
I think rail stiffeners will definitely be in order. Without a doubt there will be guys with bent rails, burnt off sliders and delaminated tracks on the T3s next year. On my 174" I run ski scratchers and rail scratchers and still find myself riding on the edge of the trail to keep things cool on cold frozen trails.
Similar threads
