Mike270412
Golden Boy
Won'tIlookwaycoolerhangingoutatthecabinwitha174?I'm curious as to why guys are so hung up on the 174"s though. The 162 3" seems to work so well. And I've yet to see a 170" anything, do anything in the terrain we ride, that a 162 can't. The same can be said for turbos though, but that's wayyyyyy off topic.
/QUOTE]
The reason people like a 174" is that the terrain they ride is super steep and sometimes deep in some instances. Steep, as in come over backwards steep. The length helps keep the front end down which in some situations, can mean the difference between totalling a 20k sled or not. On the extreme side, 174" can save your life. Think about a steep steep climb or side hill above a 300 ft rock face. You need all the traction and stability possible. A shorter track than possible takes away some of your survival points. Yea, it's dumb but it's done everyday. A 162" in these situations is dangerous and in extreme cases may contribute to serious injury or death.
That is why you only see 174's on the Revy guys chute climbing adventures.
The 162" limits the terrain that you can access unless the 162" rider is really skilled and has a decade or more backcountry experience, had a good sled mentor and possesses a somewhat natural ability to sled. The non-cabin dwellers I like to call them.
For the adventurous and where terrain dictates, 174 is king.
Back on topic.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk