Track question(s)

[ReX]

Turning radius doesn't change because the skis go where you point them.

But the "wheelbase" increases - therefore the turning radius increases.

Turning is no harder since rails are moved back to increase leverage.

I don't expect it would be harder to turn the steering.

Flotation is better from improved approach angle.

Not to mention the additional surface area.

If you have that power and aren't spinning your track like an idiot (I mean the sled, not you), then there is something very inefficient about your driveline.

We often talk about my Storm as the trench digger. In most moderately packed lake conditions it could spin the track at 50-60 mph right off the line. Wide open it would leave with a huge rooster tail and would dig a trench for a few hundred feet. It took my buddies F7, T-cat, and an XCR800 most of the time (they were all very close). I have the clutching set up for maximum track hp, not for spin control. Whenever it was running, the Storm was a great sled (5 blown cranks, pistons, 2 snapped chains, blown chaincases, cracked primary clutch, etc. - no track problems with the 9860 though). The whole point to the RX-1 was a little slower, but a lot more riding...

 

[LazyBastard]

er.. "wheelbase" .. if you want to call it that.. is from side to side. Think about the shape of a sled. Its like a triangle with a point straight back. The skis will go exactly where you point them, and the track will just get pulled along for the ride. Really doesn't affect turning radius. All those really long sleds that don't turn sharp don't suffer from turning radius, they suffer from PUSH.

With the way you describe spinning that thing, I'm really surprised you haven't blown a bunch of tracks. Your *lucky*.

 

[ReX]

Now that we've totally high jacked buddah2's thread....

Wheelbase is distance from front wheels to rear wheels on a wheeled machine. Longer wheelbase, with the same front wheel turning angle, the larger the turning radius.

A sled has skis that act like the steering wheels, and a track that acts like the rear wheels. Depending on where the center of pressure is on the track determines where the virtual "wheel" center is.

If you take a sled and shorten the front limiter so much that it's sitting on the rear axle it will have a larger turning radius. If you shorten the rear limiter (if it had one) so you're riding on the front of the sliders it will have a smaller turning radius.

If the center of pressure is at the center of the track and you go from a short track to a long track you are increasing the "wheelbase" and therefore increasing the turning radius.

Typically the longer the track the sharper the skis have to be turned for the same turn.

I don't want to keep arguing this point.

I'm sure a longer track sled can be set to handle well, but an equally well set up short track sled will be more nimble, especially in tight twistry trails that dictate slower speeds.

In the deep stuff or racing your buddies on a lake, the longer track has obvious advantages with enough horsepower.

BTW, the first (stock) track on the Storm was falling to pieces at about 2500 miles.

 

[LazyBastard]

Now that we've totally high jacked buddah2's thread....

Wheelbase is distance from front wheels to rear wheels on a wheeled machine.

Left wheel to right wheel.

Longer wheelbase, with the same front wheel turning angle, the larger the turning radius.

A sled has skis that act like the steering wheels, and a track that acts like the rear wheels.

track acts more like a trailer. You might drive over stuff if it was as wide as the ski BASE, but its not that wide, so no problem.

Depending on where the center of pressure is on the track determines where the virtual "wheel" center is.

If you take a sled and shorten the front limiter so much that it's sitting on the rear axle it will have a larger turning radius. If you shorten the rear limiter (if it had one) so you're riding on the front of the sliders it will have a smaller turning radius.

If the center of pressure is at the center of the track and you go from a short track to a long track you are increasing the "wheelbase" and therefore increasing the turning radius.

Typically the longer the track the sharper the skis have to be turned for the same turn.

I don't want to keep arguing this point.

Sounds really interesting, but what makes the turning radius is the angle that the turning wheels or skis make with respect to straight ahead.

BTW, the first (stock) track on the Storm was falling to pieces at about 2500 miles.

Stock track rx1 was camoplast 9855. Gone 1k miles. Replacement camoplast 9833 gone 3.5k miles.

 

[wolfie]

Why are you guys pushing a longer track?

I just bought an 05 RX-1 with a 121" track because I wanted the short track.

Most of the time I spend riding aggressively on groomed trails. I rarely do lake racing. My #1 requirement is maximized trail performance, especially cornering on tight, twisty trails.

IMO, a well tweaked setup a longer track won't handle as well as well tweaked short track on our trails.

Because short track 121" was introduced for 600cc size engines. Its not enough traction for more power than that and as a result, they SHRED. I shredded two before I got smart and switched to 144". Trail handling was NOT compromised.

You are out of your mind. Where do you come up with some of this nonsense? 121 inch tracks have been around since the beginning of time, and for all motor sizes. And you're kidding yourself if you think a 144 inch sled is gonna turn as good as a 121 inch sled. And that is most definitely compromise. I'm not trying to start anything, you have been here longer than me. But that advice is bull$hit.

 

[LazyBastard]

You are wrong on all counts. Prior to 600 cc class, tracks used were shorter than 121". Phazer had 114 (or was it 116?)... When the power exceeded what the track could hold, they went longer. Exciter, Vmax 500/600 took the longer 121". They seemed to forget about longer track at the time when the VMax4 came around.

Now about that 121 vs 144 inch thing.. you seem to think its a compromise? It actually turns BETTER with 144 - LESS push, LESS effort, because the ski pressure is more controllable and the turning center is shifted backwards.

 

[ReX]

Now that we've totally high jacked buddah2's thread....

Wheelbase is distance from front wheels to rear wheels on a wheeled machine.

Left wheel to right wheel.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wheelbase

 

[ReX]

Depending on where the center of pressure is on the track determines where the virtual "wheel" center is.

If you take a sled and shorten the front limiter so much that it's sitting on the rear axle it will have a larger turning radius. If you shorten the rear limiter (if it had one) so you're riding on the front of the sliders it will have a smaller turning radius.

If the center of pressure is at the center of the track and you go from a short track to a long track you are increasing the "wheelbase" and therefore increasing the turning radius.

Typically the longer the track the sharper the skis have to be turned for the same turn.

Sounds really interesting, but what makes the turning radius is the angle that the turning wheels or skis make with respect to straight ahead.

Try it. It works. I played around with the suspension on my 650 and Storm for years and if you put more pressure at the front of the track you can turn around in a much smaller area. With the pressure more at the rear you need a larger area. This is without the skis sliding.

Do you think a bus has the same turning radius as a small car? The bus's front wheels you will find can actually turn sharper too.

I'm starting to loose confidence in you LB.... (normally I agree with most of your posts...)

 

[RX1 Yooper]

Lazy,
Doesn't the Mach Z, and most turbo RX 1's have 121" tracks? Are they shredding?

 

[LazyBastard]

Its not a matter of trying it, and thats not even what we're talking about. You increase the pressure down at the front of the track and you lift the skis off the ground. How's that going to steer? I think that what you're experiencing is change in steering EFFORT, not radius. It does take more effort to turn when you have pressure down on the skis.

 

[ReX]

Its not a matter of trying it, and thats not even what we're talking about. You increase the pressure down at the front of the track and you lift the skis off the ground. How's that going to steer? I think that what you're experiencing is change in steering EFFORT, not radius. It does take more effort to turn when you have pressure down on the skis.

Your missing my point.

On my 650 I once had the rear of the skid freeze up - in the compressed position. As long as I didn't hit the gas and lift the skis, I could turn the sled around on what seemed like a dime. It would turn around in about an 8 foot diameter circle as only the skis and the very front of the track were touching the ground. The back end would sort of swing out like a schoolbus.

That's the extreme case. On a normal sled it's the center of pressure that is the approximate pivot point for the rear of a sled (acts like the rear wheels of a car).

Longer track, center of pressure farther back, larger turning radius, less nimble on tight twisty trails, wants to keep going straight more, but at the same time more stable at higher speeds, better in deep snow, more traction, etc.

 

[wolfie]

You are wrong on all counts. Prior to 600 cc class, tracks used were shorter than 121". Phazer had 114 (or was it 116?)... When the power exceeded what the track could hold, they went longer. Exciter, Vmax 500/600 took the longer 121". They seemed to forget about longer track at the time when the VMax4 came around.

Now about that 121 vs 144 inch thing.. you seem to think its a compromise? It actually turns BETTER with 144 - LESS push, LESS effort, because the ski pressure is more controllable and the turning center is shifted backwards.

I can't figure out if you're a first class troller, or just out of your mind. You wanna have some kind of status here, and offer up advice that flies in the face of reality, I'm gonna call you on it. I'm tired of all the nonsense posted as fact on some of these boards, cuz alot of rookies are gonna take it as fact, when it's plain wrong. I'm getting the impression all your knowledge is self taught, cuz I've never read any of your theories in any books. While I admire your effort, you are sorely deluded. Last week you were trying to convince people of the merits of that rediculous pogo stick suspension. While in theory it may look good, in practice it was horrible. See sawing up and down and side to side, while the Indys and ZR's of the day were tracking straight and true at a much higher rate of speed. Limited travel, flexible frame with too much stress on the mounting points, it simply didn't work as good as the other designs. I don't know what basis you're getting the idea that 121 inch tracks were made for 600 class sleds. I can remember when 440s were the biggest sleds made, and they were on 121 inch tracks...and I know plenty of guys with big miles on studded 121 inch tracks, longer tracks are for one thing and one thing only, traction, not because the bigger motors shred the smaller tracks. I'm not even gonna respond to your rediculous notion that a 144 inch track turns better than a 121 inch track, because it's over the top absurd. Alot of people come on here to get information, qualified and knowledgeable information, and you are serving up bull$hit. People who don't know the difference should be made aware. :ORC

 

[buddah]

Hey, guys? Can I have my thread back,..........PLEASE?

Too late..........I ordered the 121" Ripsaw. If it's wrong, it's wrong and I'll fix it. Such is life. Wouldn't be the first mistake I ever made, eh?

(Although being buddies with Yooper might be......... )

 

[wolfie]

Hey, guys? Can I have my thread back,..........PLEASE?

Too late..........I ordered the 121" Ripsaw. If it's wrong, it's wrong and I'll fix it. Such is life. Wouldn't be the first mistake I ever made, eh?

(Although being buddies with Yooper might be......... )

Buddah, sorry bud, you're gonna absolutely love that Ripsaw, trust me. The hookup in loose snow is most impressive. And you won't even mind the extra steering effort and turning radius over the much more nimble 144 incher.

 

[ReX]

Hey, guys? Can I have my thread back,..........PLEASE?

Too late..........I ordered the 121" Ripsaw. If it's wrong, it's wrong and I'll fix it. Such is life. Wouldn't be the first mistake I ever made, eh?

(Although being buddies with Yooper might be......... )

Sorry about that. I just couldn't leave it alone with the advice being soo far out....

I love the ripsaw on my 05 RX-1 ER. It hooks up amazingly and handles very well (little more tweaking and it will be handling awesomely).

I'm sure you'll like it.