is a 162/163 that much harder to throw around???

[assaultn]

Pickn up a new sled this week and Im torn between lengths, I do 80% riding in the hills and dont care too much about beatn my buddies through the stuble or trails so my main concern is mountain performance. I came off a 146 and have been riding a 153 for the past 2 years and love it. Has decent flotation but I am still able to pull of downhill turnouts and really work the tight spots. That being said, I am usually the trail breker in our group and could realy use the extra flotation for slower navigation through new areas and to cut down on the stucks but dont want to lose the manuverability I have now. So, is the extra 10 inches that much harder to throw around???

 

[dragontamer]

You won't tell the difference. The sled itself is only about 6 inches longer. I ride a 163 no problem in the right spots.

 

[tekim]

I would agree with getting a 162. I've got a 153 M8, which is good, but there are times when I wish I had the extra length. Plus, if you are looking at doing any track or rear suspension upgrades, there are far more options for used parts than there are for the 153.

 

[flying frenchman]

Go for the 163 and you'll be very happy. It handle very well. My PRO163 handle better than my 151.

 

[tantrumpipeline]

I have both, the difference is the rear idler on the 62 starts where it ends on the 53, the only difference I notice is the 53 trenches a little worse and will tail stand easier, could be length, limiter strap, who knows both are fun to ride but being a little longer can't hurt flotation so from now on I'm buying only 62/63's

 

[Bnorth]

I have never been out riding and said geeze I wish I had a shorter track.

 

[j.c.higgins]

Bigger is Better!

 

[moyiesledhead]

I have never been out riding and said geeze I wish I had a shorter track.

I sure have! When the trail is only 8' wide and ends abruptly.....and the sled is 12' long!

 

[ryan#1]

I have never been out riding and said geeze I wish I had a shorter track.

I wish for a shorter track whenever the back end is buried. That 163 can jam in pretty good lol. I didn't notice much difference in handling going 146 to 163. If you do lots of trail breaking you will find the bit extra on 163 makes a huge difference and that extra few seconds to think about things like where the trail is going is sure nice to have.

 

[assaultn]

The jurry is out 162 it is, thanks fellas!!!!

 

[PINandPRAY]

Not to high jack anything away from assaultn,but im in the same boat somewhat. Except i like to jump and do drops but generally into deep fresh snow. I dont like landing in hard pack cuz the body cant take the hard jarring anymore. Im coming off of 153 as well and weigh about 190. Just wondering if anyone has a similar riding style as me and rides a 160s size track with any regrets? Thanks for your time

 

[tantrumpipeline]

Not to high jack anything away from assaultn,but im in the same boat somewhat. Except i like to jump and do drops but generally into deep fresh snow. I dont like landing in hard pack cuz the body cant take the hard jarring anymore. Im coming off of 153 as well and weigh about 190. Just wondering if anyone has a similar riding style as me and rides a 160s size track with any regrets? Thanks for your time

I have a bunch if buddies with xp's 54 and 63's that regret not installing ice age rails due to jumping mishaps but they never complain about length, I've done small drops 10-15ft with my 62 into deep snow and never had an issue

 

[summit1974]

can't go wrong with the longer track...More floatation and just as "flickable" LOL