2016 RMK rumours..........already!!!
- Thread starter sketch96
- Start date
sledneck_03
Active VIP Member
by the looks of polaris patents, they are lifting the pro rmk chassis up 2-3". longer spindles, dropped and rolled belt drive, long rear suspension hangers. Also a full width lug track, possibly done to stiffen the track because it has no fiberglass rods to cut weight. it should have the axys plastic, and the 160 hp HO motor. Speculation is it will be under 400lbs. would like to see carbon fiber tunnel sides, or some better gussets in the weak areas of the tunnel, like cat did with the m and the rolled gussets over pop riveted on plates.
TryHonesty
Active member
I just read the first post in your thread, i didnt realize you do get the whole winter off, which is awesome! You have a really rare opportunity there, hopefully Picard there can teleport you in some gas!
Anyway, lets not derail this thread, anything further lets throw in your main thread.
I could start a few, but then I would have to follow this thread to say "See I told you so" at snow check time.
Last edited:
Chrisco
Active VIP Member
2.7............
sledneck_03
Active VIP Member
With 2020 epas coming out. Maybe a nice 4 year run, or else they may be dropping turbo small cc motors like the auto industry.
PINandPRAY
Active member
The Polaris 16 release is something to look forward to for sure. The pro chassis has worked great for me and suits my riding style very well, that being said I don't need crazy changes to keep me happy. "Big changes" to Polaris is very scary.. The reason i say this is because i feel they never got the Pro perfected, little changes to pro would still make it the sled to beat IMO. Rumor has it that narrowed panels are in the books for the 16, so I'd like see an option for at least a 36" stance.
Is "bigger the better" the future of mountain sledding? I'm not quite sold on this.. Even though the T3 174 is working great for the Doo guys I really hope that Polaris doesn't follow in the track length department, because i firmly believe you can achieve the same goal with a properly setup 163" making the added track length a nuisance to the majority of riders IMO.
Very excited about the added HP as long as its reliable, I haven't witnessed any motor failures with the current 800 and i mainly ride with pro's. My biggest issue with Polaris has been fit and finish and overlooking refinements. Hopefully Polaris has learned from their mistakes with the Pro and deliver us a great product for 16.
Is "bigger the better" the future of mountain sledding? I'm not quite sold on this.. Even though the T3 174 is working great for the Doo guys I really hope that Polaris doesn't follow in the track length department, because i firmly believe you can achieve the same goal with a properly setup 163" making the added track length a nuisance to the majority of riders IMO.
Very excited about the added HP as long as its reliable, I haven't witnessed any motor failures with the current 800 and i mainly ride with pro's. My biggest issue with Polaris has been fit and finish and overlooking refinements. Hopefully Polaris has learned from their mistakes with the Pro and deliver us a great product for 16.
maxwell
Active VIP Member
Guess your the only one not sold on it. About 9 bazillion of them sold. When the name of the game is steep and deep you can't achieve the same with a 163 plain and simple. Or let's say you can...then tdo the same to the 174 and you have a new monster. Your thought process doesn't really make sense to me. A 174 is far from a nuisance like I originally thought it would be
jhurkot
Active VIP Member
Biggest track is the best. Thats why the RMK 900 166 was the king of the mountain for so long.
maxwell
Active VIP Member
I'm sure it would have been if it could of held together
TryHonesty
Active member
This all depends on your type of riding and how well everything works. A 174 with a 3 inch track is going to have heat and slider issues in the skinnier snow typically. However the T3 owners will be the best to tell just of how it operates in the skinny snow, as its brand new in design and 163s from years ago would melt in the shallow or hard packed stuff, especially at higher speeds. A 163 now can operate in skinnier snow due to newer tracks that dont have lugs that like snap off at higher speeds and sliders that handle more heat. You can always as ever, add bogie wheels to help the track out if your riding less then ideal snow levels for the type of sled your running. Out in Ontario, short tracks and small lugs are common because its normal for people to blast down trails with low snow at 80+ MPH alot. A longer track will always push more at speed when turning then a shorter track. But the simple things is here that the T3 and the RMK 163-166 were always planned to be running at 7500+ feet of elevation with lots and lots of nice snow straight to the top of the hill. The short tracks are meant for speed, fields and trails. People out west laugh at short tracks, but they are sold in huge volumes cause its alot flatter out east (obviously) and there is alot larger population base in those flatter areas to purchase those shorter machines. Snow still gets plenty deep though, Buffalo's latest super snow squall is a good example.
Rider skill means alot, I was struggling like crazy with my 600 144 sled at Silent Pass, Neil, a far more experience rider let me borrow his 800 154 sled and boom, to the top I went after ****ting my pants on a few attempts. He, being a sidehilling master, took my 600 to places with ease that i would have normally looked at saying "F**K no!" But when your comparing decades of experience vs the end of somebodies first year in the hills, thats what happens.
A skilled rider will push a 155 to extreme limits, where as somebody of less skill would normally need a 174 to get to the same area, at least until their skill and awarness starts to match the other rider. Even Chris Burandt perfers a 155 and Polaris gives him access to turbo 174s.
Memorization of an area always makes a huge difference. When your looking at those huge piles for the first time vs somebody who has ridden a backcountry area dozens apon dozens of times, there is no comparison.
If your planning on running the mountains and the flats, potentially with lower and harder snow (drifting, -30 C, etc) a track length in the middle would be more versatile. 174 isnt automatically going to match every rider, regardless of how many commericals they watch. That doesnt change that for the deepest and the steepest, the most power and the longest track with the biggest lugs will do it best.
But dont get me wrong, my next sled is a Axys 800 RMK 163, Can slice and dice the hills and Ill just add a set of bogies if its having trouble when im smashing snow in the prairies.
Last edited:
PINandPRAY
Active member
I agree that the 174 does great things but its not for everybody and 174 is not the best choice for all snow types and riding styles IMO. Ya doo sold lots of 174s this year but is that sled necessary for spring/low snow conditions? I guess we will see at the end of the season. And yes you missed my point.. are the big 3 manufactures making these 150/160"s chassis's to there max potential? I look at it like dirt bikes for years now minimal changes are being made to dirt bikes because they have pushed engineering so far. This isn't the case for mountain sleds yet if you can make a sled just as capable as a current oem 174 in a smaller track length then yes the added length is not needed in this era of the sport. Every year we are getting lighter more stronger products brought into our sport gaining simple mass isn't the solution to slaying trees and technical riding in a larger picture.
My group rented a T3 174 last week in revy, the sled performed very well in the deep snow but we all agreed the 163 T3 would've made a better fit for the day. When standing on the 174 it doesn't feel big but in reality its a huge machine, the objective of tree riding is to put our sleds into tighter more technical places.. so your thinking is to make a sled bigger?? I dont quite follow?? wouldn't a smaller lighter machine make more sense if it was just as capable? its about pushing the envelope.
Polaris is a company that been pushing the weight game for awhile now i'm interested to where that goes. Who knows they may succeed or may fail but i like the direction they are going.
Besides if Polaris builds a 174 then their would be no competition jk
Chrisco
Active VIP Member
**** im gunna kick your ass this weekend.
HotShotHarry
Active VIP Member
I carry a Glue stick with me.
Last edited:
AreWeThereYet
Active VIP Member
Any reports on how that new 800HO motor is performing. I was talking to my dealer a couple days ago and he said they are in the process of moving in into the other models.
snopro
Active VIP Member
It wouldn't surprise me to see some mountain proto's on the snow after the new year for dealers to let peeps try on the snow to create excitement for the 2016 snowcheck program? With the engine out of the bag already and guys like Burandt already running this engine in his stuff it would be great marketing to the Polaris faithful?
rightsideup
Active VIP Member
it would only make sense I owned a 2001 1/2 700 xc ves that sparked interest in that motor for the next season doo has been doing a good job with demo rides of the t3. it would be to polaris benefit.
My buddy rode a stretched Axys with a bone stock motor with under 100 miles (not broke in) and was very impressed. It was even with his good running piped, clutched, geared 2014 Pro.
Similar threads
