Frostbite
TY 4 Stroke God
I finally getting to climb in some untouched powder on an APEX this weekend. After feeling the way it's Maverick hooked up compared to my 151" finger track it made it painfully clear I was WAY out gunned.
I was planning to go a 159 x 16 x 2.3" (2.52" pitch) track in a few weeks because I already have 2.52 extroverts. I hadn't thought about going to a 162 x 16 x 2.3" because I guess I thought all 162" tracks were 3.0" pitch because 2.52" pitch tracks are 151" and 3.0" are 153".
I know the 3.0" pitch tracks are supposed to be all the rage. They are lighter because they have less cross bars and clips but, they tend to be more prone to sticking a rail tip through their largish rectangular holes than a 2.52".
Skidoo for some reason hasn't signed on the 3.0" pitch revolution (not yet anyway) and their new Challenger Lite tracks are nearly as light as their 3.0" pitch counterparts.
e 2.52" track could and maybe do have more paddles for a given track length than a 3.0" equivalent (at least from what I have seen). Do these additional paddles provide any real benefit (other than weight) or does a 3.0" pitch of the same length work just as well or better?
It seems most of the new track designs are coming out in the 3.0" pitch. I'm guessing from that one thing that the future will see more 3.0" and less 2.52" tracks.
Is there much difference in effectiveness between 159" x 16" and a 162" x 16" while climbing or boondocking?
Heck, all I know is I need to go longer (or at least wider) track. What is your best advice?
Thanks
Frosty
I was planning to go a 159 x 16 x 2.3" (2.52" pitch) track in a few weeks because I already have 2.52 extroverts. I hadn't thought about going to a 162 x 16 x 2.3" because I guess I thought all 162" tracks were 3.0" pitch because 2.52" pitch tracks are 151" and 3.0" are 153".
I know the 3.0" pitch tracks are supposed to be all the rage. They are lighter because they have less cross bars and clips but, they tend to be more prone to sticking a rail tip through their largish rectangular holes than a 2.52".
Skidoo for some reason hasn't signed on the 3.0" pitch revolution (not yet anyway) and their new Challenger Lite tracks are nearly as light as their 3.0" pitch counterparts.
e 2.52" track could and maybe do have more paddles for a given track length than a 3.0" equivalent (at least from what I have seen). Do these additional paddles provide any real benefit (other than weight) or does a 3.0" pitch of the same length work just as well or better?
It seems most of the new track designs are coming out in the 3.0" pitch. I'm guessing from that one thing that the future will see more 3.0" and less 2.52" tracks.
Is there much difference in effectiveness between 159" x 16" and a 162" x 16" while climbing or boondocking?
Heck, all I know is I need to go longer (or at least wider) track. What is your best advice?
Thanks
Frosty