I guess we will need a new Matryx 900 section tomorrow?

[Rhodesie]

I think Johnny could ride a Kawasaki Invader in the trees and embarrass a lot of new sleds. He may be comparing apples to watermelons? Lol

Johnny’s reviews are not written through rose coloured glasses. I respect that for sure. Would be kool to see a 20 min vid from a go pro’s vantage.

 

[snopro]

Johnny’s reviews are not written through rose coloured glasses. I respect that for sure. Would be kool to see a 20 min vid from a go pro’s vantage.

He used to do vids on YouTube but don’t think so anymore

 

[jhurkot]

i ride with alot of phenomenal riders on 154 turbos (both brands) they really struggle to put the power to the ground in deep snow and aren't that impressive imo. Need to get up and float to get that power down

So you’re saying that the 16” wide track is not an advantage ?

 

[maxwell]

So you’re saying that the 16” wide track is not an advantage ?

LOL nice.

used to be more so before this new track. Skidoo narrowed it 3/8" and moved the lugs in another 3/8" but have now gone back to full width and full width paddles so that 16 wide advantage will show up more again in the future

 

[Caper11]

Everyone getting all gangsta in here. Didn’t realize s&m was so full of white niggas.

The proper vernacular is wigger.

 

[Modman]

So you’re saying that the 16” wide track is not an advantage ?

No its not. I did the math when they first came out. Without getting into all of it, here is the coles notes - The 16" wide is only 6.25% larger by math (2640 square inches compared to the 2475 of the 15" wide - assume both 165"). divided since only 1/2 the track on the bottom is in the snow and the other half in the tunnel - 1320 square inches for 16" wide and 1237.5 for 15" wide - 82.5 square inches difference touching the snow).

This calculation has no assumptions and factors in a flat track with equal pressure. Also, depending on which side of the fence you sit, the 15" wide is either 6.25% smaller or the 16" wide is 6.667% larger. Averaging these 2 numbers gives 6.46% which I used to be fair. Also, there was a bit of fudge factoring here since the return path of the track maybe slightly less (or more) distance than what touches the snow, so there may be a very slight bias to a sled that puts more of the track down around near the front of the drivers. Marginal increase though.

A track has 2 sides, so divide 82.5 again. Each extra 1/2" half of the track touching the snow accounts for 41.25 square inches or about 3.23%. When does anyone ever ride perfectly flat in the mountains? Even on a straight up shot there are slight variations in snow, terrain and rider input. So one side of the track will be biased weight - if you assume 65% and 45% for a moderate slope where the track is still touching in the snow on both sides but sidehilling a 10 -15 degree slope. Discount a 10-15% void space in front of each paddle (at a minimum) where there is no snow due to rearward thrust, the difference is marginal. I think I averaged it out around 1.9% or someting in the end.

Bigger advantage than the track width is the approach angle, ski spindle and arm drag (friction) ski pressure and rubber durometer of the track, which can lay over and take up some of the floatation in the void space behind each paddle. These last 4 things are where Doo got it more figured out than the other guys, and just makes the 16" wide seem like it performs better.

 

[niner]

Better late than never….

 

[NoBrakes!]

man you're good lol ^^^

 

[Modman]

Not sure if this has been covered, but is a modern two stroke fuel injected triple realistic?

Not in most of the current chassis's but likely could in the Cat since Yammy is getting the 4 stroke in there. I'd love to see the triple come back!

This is a plug for Iantomasi Racing who've been working with Fueltech and now Haltech and developing their own EFI. He's started making his own throttle bodies as well. They build some fast stuff and have held a few world records so maybe we'll see a system come out from them.

 

[MarkCos]

View attachment 253346
Better late than never….

 

[MarkCos]

9nerd!!!!
Sit ur ass down…..little class clown

Cash deal

 

[maxwell]

No its not. I did the math when they first came out. Without getting into all of it, here is the coles notes - The 16" wide is only 6.25% larger by math (2640 square inches compared to the 2475 of the 15" wide - assume both 165"). divided since only 1/2 the track on the bottom is in the snow and the other half in the tunnel - 1320 square inches for 16" wide and 1237.5 for 15" wide - 82.5 square inches difference touching the snow).

This calculation has no assumptions and factors in a flat track with equal pressure. Also, depending on which side of the fence you sit, the 15" wide is either 6.25% smaller or the 16" wide is 6.667% larger. Averaging these 2 numbers gives 6.46% which I used to be fair. Also, there was a bit of fudge factoring here since the return path of the track maybe slightly less (or more) distance than what touches the snow, so there may be a very slight bias to a sled that puts more of the track down around near the front of the drivers. Marginal increase though.

A track has 2 sides, so divide 82.5 again. Each extra 1/2" half of the track touching the snow accounts for 41.25 square inches or about 3.23%. When does anyone ever ride perfectly flat in the mountains? Even on a straight up shot there are slight variations in snow, terrain and rider input. So one side of the track will be biased weight - if you assume 65% and 45% for a moderate slope where the track is still touching in the snow on both sides but sidehilling a 10 -15 degree slope. Discount a 10-15% void space in front of each paddle (at a minimum) where there is no snow due to rearward thrust, the difference is marginal. I think I averaged it out around 1.9% or someting in the end.

Bigger advantage than the track width is the approach angle, ski spindle and arm drag (friction) ski pressure and rubber durometer of the track, which can lay over and take up some of the floatation in the void space behind each paddle. These last 4 things are where Doo got it more figured out than the other guys, and just makes the 16" wide seem like it performs better.

hmm so variables aside the track is 6.25% better floatation and traction. Sounds marginal but guys are ecstatic to spend 26k on an engine that performs 7% better so i mean it all adds up LMFAO

 

[niner]

 

[niner]

9nerd!!!!
Sit ur ass down…..little class clown

Cash deal

Just getting started now….

 

[M1ryguy]

I'd be scared enough modding a Polaris motor but now they are doing it for you! Good luck boys!

 

[MarkCos]

View attachment 253348

Yo..This is som early morn wack. I’d better roll one up, and dip out for the day….lol

 

[Kibbels]

This markos dude, seems to in a bad mood and telling it like it is all week, I’m really beginning to question if he is a dude. I hope you feel better this week

Probably Shark Week

 

[Caper11]

hmm so variables aside the track is 6.25% better floatation and traction. Sounds marginal but guys are ecstatic to spend 26k on an engine that performs 7% better so i mean it all adds up LMFAO

 

[Pistonbroke]

hmm so variables aside the track is 6.25% better floatation and traction. Sounds marginal but guys are ecstatic to spend 26k on an engine that performs 7% better so i mean it all adds up LMFAO

Using the same “all variables aside” logic, that track is also 6.25% heavier with an even larger inertial load. No wonder the Tdoo goes so slow uphill.

 

[snochuk]

View attachment 253349

Nice one .
Been ducking cheap shots fired by Doo since this thread started.
Does second place on spring release really create that much insecurity for Doolaiders?