bhowes
Active VIP Member
good girl i will bring both of my 800 s so getting a good day on the seat of an xm wont be an issue see ya on sunday
155 vs 163
- Thread starter ~Rowdy~
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #82
Can't wait! You can thank Phil for twisting my arm into coming, haha. Now I just gotta get my electrical re-wired for my grip heat, wash all my gear and clean my house! See you Sat afternoon!
polaris011
Active VIP Member
163 is the only way ... especially when you get those really deep days we all love that little bit of extra makes a big difference...i have a 163 and i jump and drop probably more the the average guy.. my tunnel may have been injured a bit but nothing a little welding and a new bracket couldnt fix... but my rails are perfect .... if your worried about throwing it around dont be you wont even notice it
- Thread starter
- #84
I'm not a believer in absolute terms like that. So I'd have to say I do not agree that a 163 is "the only way to go". I've seen lots of guys on 144, 146, 151, 154's kill it on their sleds. Sure they aren't hill climbing, but they ninja through the trees like nothing else and can whip a sled off a jump or drop way easier than a bigger sled.
Only 144 I saw suck balls was a 144 NON turbo'd Nytro who thought he could follow us wherever we went in Revy. He did good, BUT had a lot of trouble getting out of areas.
polaris011
Active VIP Member
It may not be the only way. But I'm biased to the 163 sounds like we ride similar and I have never once regreted the long track
oler1234
Active VIP Member
my opinion... 162+
the deeper the powder the more agressive you gonna have to be to keep up to longer track sleds. Thats pretty much a fact. 54, 55, 56's do the same as 62/63s but you will have to hit and carry more speed for most everything.
I know the wonderful lady who come out last ride with us on her new 163XM rode a 153 version before the new xm. At first it was a little diffrent and almost over bearing (sled controlling her) but afterwards she comments on how much easier and less energy it takes to ride. The sled does most the work now rather than that agressiveness and in turn she has more energy throughout the day. result... well the thing never really turns off now.
As for a 156 3"... i dunno i got a 162 version and i find it does have the want to come over backwards, never rode a 156 version but with a low boost setup i'd imagine this could be more of a problem regardless of brand or rear skid setup.
the deeper the powder the more agressive you gonna have to be to keep up to longer track sleds. Thats pretty much a fact. 54, 55, 56's do the same as 62/63s but you will have to hit and carry more speed for most everything.
I know the wonderful lady who come out last ride with us on her new 163XM rode a 153 version before the new xm. At first it was a little diffrent and almost over bearing (sled controlling her) but afterwards she comments on how much easier and less energy it takes to ride. The sled does most the work now rather than that agressiveness and in turn she has more energy throughout the day. result... well the thing never really turns off now.
As for a 156 3"... i dunno i got a 162 version and i find it does have the want to come over backwards, never rode a 156 version but with a low boost setup i'd imagine this could be more of a problem regardless of brand or rear skid setup.
snopro
Active VIP Member
Hey Blair, don't forget to slip a little Doolaide in her coffee first thing when she isn't looking.....Loooooool.
- Thread starter
- #88
GYMBRAT
Active VIP Member
while you are at it slip in some bailey's too
I read it super fast and at 1st all I saw was "ey's" my bad :/
flying frenchman
Active VIP Member
If you like your skis in the air all the time then get the 155. A few in my group always complain that the skis are always in the air while climbing.
Once the sled is set-up for you it will do whatever you want.
Once the sled is set-up for you it will do whatever you want.
bhowes
Active VIP Member
while you are at it slip in some bailey's too
well ken as you know i bleed doolaide so that not a problem and kido im semi retired as you know so baileys in the morning coffee is my" have a good morning" premix anyway
Marley
Active VIP Member
Some quick math on this for reference (for the nerds amongst us...)
Actual snow contact of a track is about 40 to 45% of total track length so using 43% as a constant:
154x16x.43 = 7.33 sq. ft.
155x15x.43 = 6.94 '' ''
163x16x.43 = 7.77 sq. ft.
163x15x.43 = 7.30 '' ''
Going from a 15 to a 16 (same length) gives an extra 6-7% contact area.
Going from a 154 to a 163 gives an extra 6% contact area (approx 4" in contact length and one extra row of lugs in the snow)
Going from 155x15 to a 163x16 gives a 12% increase in contact area.
Using 550 lbs wet for my 154 Summit X sled and about 200lbs for myself and gear gives 102lbs/sq. ft of contact area (750/7.33)
Actual snow contact of a track is about 40 to 45% of total track length so using 43% as a constant:
154x16x.43 = 7.33 sq. ft.
155x15x.43 = 6.94 '' ''
163x16x.43 = 7.77 sq. ft.
163x15x.43 = 7.30 '' ''
Going from a 15 to a 16 (same length) gives an extra 6-7% contact area.
Going from a 154 to a 163 gives an extra 6% contact area (approx 4" in contact length and one extra row of lugs in the snow)
Going from 155x15 to a 163x16 gives a 12% increase in contact area.
Using 550 lbs wet for my 154 Summit X sled and about 200lbs for myself and gear gives 102lbs/sq. ft of contact area (750/7.33)
maxwell
Active VIP Member
Math is cool but I can tell you that a 163 works 30% better lol at least
maxwell
Active VIP Member
I don't care for the 174. That is a BoAT. Big turning radius, doesn't climb much better with stock motors and vertical button hooks take twice the radius. I wouldn't do it again unless I was building a turbo climbing only sled
Marley
Active VIP Member
Agreed on the 30% for the XM - not sure on the 'math is cool' part...maybe you were just referring to sledding math...
Good info. Found a turbo nytro front mount with a 162" I made a deal with. Like to do it all from climbing, meadow riding to tree riding. I'm not much of a jumper anymore. I hope it should be an okay track length choice.
Contact area doesnt mean as much as the PSI pushing down on it. Having the equivalent contact area of a naval battleship doesn't help if you have a battleship weight pushing down on it. The difference in the 155" to 163" is 2 lbs on the track (55 lbs to 57 lbs). Polaris says the sleds are 7 lbs different on the 155 to 163, which is reasonable. Add 5 lbs for the boards, rails and tunnel and the 2 lbs for the track.
Sled A weighs 500 lbs with 155" - PSI is 72.0 lbs/square foot.
Sled B weighs 507 lbs with 163" - PSI is 69.4 lbs/square foot.
Overall your best bang for the buck is the 163", more contact area and less weight.......but - Something to consider Rowdy is that added track on the ground will be harder for your smaller frame to toss around, its not always about the floatation if you can't manouver it. I would definitely test drive them both before making any final decision. If having the added track means you are fighting it all day, you are going to be bagged and would have a better time on the 155". if you do go 163", setting up the transfer so that you can steer that much rubber with as little effort as possible will make it go much easier on ya. Make sure the sleds you test drive are set up the same on the transfer so you get an honest comparison between the two and ensure that you don't get skewed results.
northernexposure
New member
I just made the transition from 155 to 163. I was lucky enough to ride the pre Christmas storm powder on my 155 track and then the post new years storm powder on the 163. I rode everywhere on the 163 as I did on the shorter track BUT I was stuck a LOT more on the 155. The shorter track also required more rider input on my part and I required more speed through the trees. I love the 163 track and I will not go shorter in the near future. I had more time to think riding trees. I could go slower and maintain better control on hills. When I was stuck I found that we were often able to "walk" the sled out with a little help on the ski(s) requiring less work all around.
The first ride out I noticed a difference in turning and leaning the sled over but quickly got used to the longer track. There were many times that I was expecting the sled to get stuck and I got that feeling of "oh crap, here we go again" but I was surprised as the sled chewed on through. In short...I am a 163 fan and will not go shorter.
Have fun.
J
The first ride out I noticed a difference in turning and leaning the sled over but quickly got used to the longer track. There were many times that I was expecting the sled to get stuck and I got that feeling of "oh crap, here we go again" but I was surprised as the sled chewed on through. In short...I am a 163 fan and will not go shorter.
Have fun.
J
Marley
Active VIP Member
Math gives a reference. Math gave ME a PSI. You are comparing dry weight of a sled to what a fully loaded one with rider and gear would be. A large person on a sled is different than a small person - PSI wise. Using some reasonable numbers should give a reasonable reference to make a choice (which you noted later) - and as you say set up is key.
Similar threads
