Which offers a better performance gain?

The extension to 136" will only cost you a couple hundred over the cost of the track. Mountain performance or Hartmann.

Jim
 
RX1 MEIRDA said:
If you are going to put a 136" track......you are going to be even slower yet!!

Rotating weight.....come on guys!
Click to expand...
overall top speed, yeah a little but you get there so much quicker. I have had both and I'm here to tell you the Warrior is the way to go! Better ride, better hook up and I think it looks better, I mean more in proportion with the long front end. I'm sure the 121 inch mono shock rear skid will work well, but the 136 inch skid still bridges the bumps better. I can't wait for the 06 136 inch mono shocker ;)!
 
RX1 MEIRDA said:
If you are going to put a 136" track......you are going to be even slower yet!!

Rotating weight.....come on guys!
Click to expand...

You might want to think about that for a minute. Take a 500 pound wheel with a perfect bearing and zero aerodynamic drag and apply 1/8 horsepower for a week. It will then be spinning VERY fast (as in hundreds of thousands of RPM). Rotating mass does not affect top speed, it affects how fast you get there.

Same idea here: What has a higher top speed after running a straight line for 2 miles - RX1 or F7 (assuming that it could run 2 miles without blowing :shock:)? And yet how much more power per pound does an F7 have?

Yes, thats right. Mass has no effect on top speed, only on how fast you get there. Its friction that kills top speed.
 
![/quote]

. Its friction that kills top speed.[/quote]

Yes, and the longer tracked Warrior has more friction, and hence less top speed than a 121 incher.
 
Lazy:

It is very possible that what you are saying is true....and I am not going to test it out.

If you are saying the extra rotating weight affects "how fast you get there", then the 136" track will be slower in accelleration. It will hook up better though, so lets call it a wash.

Now, the increased friction will cause the sled to go slower on the top, according to your theory.

Regardless, the sled will be slower, which is what I am trying to say.

If he leaves the track alone and install's the filters... he will go from 109mph (Radar) to 113mph (radar).

Pull up beside someone on Lake of Bays....and have some fun!

First guy off the lake onto the trail wins!

Thank you
 
Seems you are the only person on this site including Freddie that has gained top speed with the filters. HMM do we believe the hundred guys and the developer or you. :ORC

Jim
 
the 136 is has different gears than the 121 so, what if i put in the 121 gears. would it have the same top speed?
 
Wolfie: Yes, the 136 will have more friction.

RX1 MEIRDA: The extra weight of the track is negligible compared to the weight of the sled, so the extra hookup is dominant over the weight increase.


Now for the reduced top speed... doesn't that suck? There is a *slight* increase in friction due to wind resistance and the extra 7.5" on the rails. Thats whats really wicked about *my* setup - since the worst friction is at the FRONT of the rails, and the rail extensions don't extend the sliders, the reduction in rail friction more than compensates for the increase in wind resistance, so the overall friction is LOWER ;)!

Low approach angle is good for top end, rubber on the ground is good for hookup. Both is better.
 
how many of you guys have roadraced (motorcycles)? Have you EVER heard of putting an exhaust system on a bike and doing nothing with the intake? NO... The engine is breathing out of the exhaust, but it's having a harder time inhaling because there's nothing that's been done with the airbox. If you balance everything out, and re-jet... you're going to make more power. Also, you may even get better mileage (i don't know if this is of any concern to you). Where are you anyways? I don't know about all this drag-racing-stuff... but overall... in order to get more power out of your engine, you need to make it flow more air. Engines are essentially "air pumps"... and the more air you can move thru them, the more power you can get them to generate.
I say go for the filters... you're gonna spin your track anyway you look at it for the most part...
 
You spin like a honda on ice with the 9855 track. More power is totally useless unless you can get it to grip. When you're driving a car on slippery surfaces, like ice, what do you do, pin the throttle and let it spin? Nope, only amateurs do that and they don't get very far. Reducing power lets you pull harder unless you increase the traction enough to TAKE the power.

I had the 9855 originally, it was worthless for hookup. Just sat there spinning. Then I changed to a 9833 (much more agressive track, 1.25") and put 144 nails in it and combined that with some good clutching. It would take 4 seconds to hook up on 8" of very hard pack over ice. After that track exploded, I decided that more track was necessary still to handle the power, so 9923 with NO nails. It hooks up INSTANTLY in the same conditions. I don't care WHAT you do with a 121" in terms of motor mods or nails, the ONLY condition that it will jump me is on glare ice, and only if its got nails. After holeshot, whether it'll catch up and pass me depends on which one has more horsepower. Note: I do NOT race on ice and make no claims about racing on ice, but if I wanted to, I could fit more nails on a 144 than what would fit on a 121.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with drag racing. Performance isn't limited to the narrow racing definitions of acceleration and top speed, it is also a function of versatility. Simply put, the more track you have, the more places you can go. You can go in flatland with 3 feet of powder with a 121x1.25, but its hairy - always on the verge of getting stuck. With the stock 121x1.00, don't even try for 3 feet - its going down.

Next issue with amount of track and track slippage. If the track is spinning, there is a significantly increased chance of chopping it up on sharp stuff thats under the snow. Longer tracks LAST longer and provide greater reliability.
 
The 136" Ripsaw top speed was 2.5mph slower then the 121" Ripsaw. This was an average taken on a variety of snow conditions.
 
Viper34 said:
The 136" Ripsaw top speed was 2.5mph slower then the 121" Ripsaw. This was an average taken on a variety of snow conditions.
Click to expand...
I can live with that. Especially seeing that the Warrior will reach point "A" before the RX-1 will with everything else being equal.
 
Greenmachine:

I have nothing to gain by posting my sled improvents.

I do not sell tracks or filters.

When I voluteer information.....it is my way of giving back to the other members on this board who have supplied myself with valuable information in the past.

We have a radar gun in our group. We carry it with us.

I radar my sled every weekend in the winter.

My sled has greater MPH with the filters.

I am sorry for those that did not get the same results.

I also know that the accelleration is much better.....I baselined my sled with another (many times) to test.

This is all that I know.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Carb Synchronizing/ Filter kit question
Replies
5
Views
1K
wolfie
W
S
will modded rx1 beat 04 zr9 and 03 f7????
Replies
14
Views
2K
jtssrx
jtssrx
Bob Miller
4 MPH GAIN ON TOP END SIMPLY BY.............................
2 3
Replies
35
Views
7K
Skydog
Skydog
LeeKo
Maxx Perf. Filters???????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Mighty
Mighty
Otis RX
ECP or TPI filter performance reports
Replies
12
Views
3K
snowbeast
snowbeast


Back
Top