Finger Track vs Rip Saw

[Srxspec]

The change in track horsepower seen from the 9833 to the 136" ripsaw was due to the added weight. Nothing to do with friction or anything else. Just the fact that there's more rotating mass which will rob you of track HP.

 

[Roadrunner]

LB, how can you say

Higher traction will NOT increase top end, only how fast you get there.

Why is it then that on glare ice the same sled with 192 ice chisels will run faster than if it just had a plain stock track on it ???? Is this not due to an increase in traction ????
If you have sufficient horsepower, at high speeds in poor traction conditions the maximum speed attainable can be no greater than the ability to transfer that horsepower to the ground. The horsepower generated by the engine and tranferred to the ground encounters an opposite force, friction, and top speed occurs when they are at equilibrium. Therefore if you reduce horsepower transferred to the ground (track spin) it's ability to overcome friction is reduced and this results in a slower speed.

 

[Dukester]

I loved the RipShaw on my warrior. The only negative I found is when riding on hard packed roads the lugs support the weight of the machine. Therefore you ride on the lugs only and that can be squirely with out studs.

 

[LazyBastard]

Roadrunner - your statement is disqualified by the fact that you're running on glare ice. You slip like a stock track on ice and obviously you're not going anywhere. If you're actually on SNOW, 1) its faster to have NO studs, 2) adding more rubber will slow you down.

 

[Roadrunner]

LB, I used an extreme example only to show that your statement was wrong. Next time use a disclaimer at the end of your posting. Something like "if you find fault in what I'm posting, I will change the conditions to make it work" People come to this site looking for information, I'm only trying to see that they get the correct information. My example will work not only on glare ice, but anytime the traction is limited either by the track itself or the snow conditions.

 

[QCRider]

If you have sufficient horsepower, at high speeds in poor traction conditions the maximum speed attainable can be no greater than the ability to transfer that horsepower to the ground. The horsepower generated by the engine and tranferred to the ground encounters an opposite force, friction, and top speed occurs when they are at equilibrium. Therefore if you reduce horsepower transferred to the ground (track spin) it's ability to overcome friction is reduced and this results in a slower speed.

I'm a little torn on this issue. I have a pretty hard time believing that the track is moving at a speed much faster than what the sled itself is moving unless you are in powder or loose snow. Or in your example, ice. On packed snow, which is what most speed runs are done on, there simply cannot be much slippage. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know how to prove this either way, but it sure is an interesting topic. I don't know that the speedometer indication being way high necessarily means anythin either. It COULD mean something, but it could also just mean it was calibrated to read high.

 

[Roadrunner]

QCRider, you're getting into a whole new topic here. I was responding to LB's statement.
I agree with you that in good conditions track speed and actual speed are probably quite close to each other.
Some previous posts on this site have stated that after changing to a more aggressive track they reported lower speedometer readings but on radar they were faster. A logical answer to this would be that slippage was somehow reduced. Usually the gain is minimal, only a few MPH.
Take a look at the tracks left by a sled at high speed, if the track pattern is well defined, hookup is good, if you don't see any pattern this is because of slippage. I have yet to see a pattern left by a sled doing 100 MPH. It's much easier to look for stud slippage on bare ice. Just look at the length of the scratches.

 

[DYNAREX]

its just like drag racing-what good is power if it aint gettin to the ground?
thats why the ripsaw is better-but because of its higher windage and wt it actually takes more power to spin it-so would you rather lose,say,3hp spinning a bigger and heavier track of keep the 3 hp but not have the traction to use it-its a fine line-and the clipless design increases the resistance with snow or not-the coefficient of friction on a cold icy metal track clip is far less tha anything on the rubber portion of the track against the hyfax-this was only done by camoplast to lower weight and in an attempt to hold more snow in the skidframe

 

[LazyBastard]

Valid points, but they would have the OPPOSITE effect on the giggle gauge. Think of it like this; if you have better traction, it means you are slipping less.. the less you slip at any given REAL speed, the LOWER the giggle gauge reads.

As for slippage on hardpack.... it is about 10% with a good 121" track, 15% with a 9855.

Now what *I* know from my own personal experience is this; with the 144" track, there is less slippage than with a 121" 9833 - thats obvious because there is an extra 8" of track on the ground (8" x 2 = 16" + 4" x 2 for relocation = 24, 144 - 121 = 23). EVEN WITH the added traction, my giggle gauge reads 2 mph above what it ever did with 9833. *real* speed is up by about 4 mph.

 

[snowmonkey]

tracks

I have a camoplast finger track and it is terrible, go with the ripsaw.