short 128/129 vs 136/137 for trail...

[Crnr2Crnr]

another perspective from a person that can ride whatever he wants at any time

bump bridging bs aside the 136/137 should out accelerate and out brake the shorter skids, and track a bit straigther.  

would like to sling a leg over the actual 136 tipped rail Polaris to compare on trails I know well.

I'm more inclined to go for the shorter skid with premium shocks and 2.52P... which is not an option for AC going into 2024 

here's a more professional perspective....

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Crnr2Crnr

[Not greg b]

Tipped rails won’t do shit. My 156 super jag has them and that thing takes a country mile to turn around compared to the short tracked version. 

[airflite1]

53 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

another perspective from a person that can ride whatever he wants at any time

bump bridging bs aside the 136/137 should out accelerate and out brake the shorter skids, and track a bit straigther.  

would like to sling a leg over the actual 136 tipped rail Polaris to compare on trails I know well.

I'm more inclined to go for the shorter skid with premium shocks and 2.52P... which is not an option for AC going into 2024 

here's a more professional perspective....

 

I always had short tracks, I was so hesitant going to a 136, I can't see going back. Maybe next year we'll trailer to Mosinee. 

[mnstang]

Tipped rails are a gimmick.  Most any new sled buyer can buy whatever they want, they're all expensive.

Might as well start an oil thread.

[Mag6240]

@Crnr2Crnr You thinking about a new Polaris??  😂

I’ve preferred 136” myself, those couple extra lugs on the snow really help in the situations Levi pointed out with a little better traction.  If it’s slower than the 128” in a few corners so be it.  And I’m glad he pointed the storage options, as someone who does a few over night trips a year, that is a must for me.

[Cat45]

I've spent alot of time on an assault and the tipped rails are definitely noticeable in handling. It almost feels like it pivots midturn when you're cornering hard. Compared to my 137 cat it handled a bit better on smooth flat corners. The bump bridging  is bs, maybe back when most sleds were 121 but with tons of 137+ today i don't notice a difference. I'd really like to try the tipped 136 also. I tried to get iceage to make tipped rails for my 137 but they were around $1200. Said they could drop price for a group buy though.

[Tommcat]

having actually switched my own sled from a 129 to 137 mid season, so i know exactly what the differences were, i would never go shorter than a 136/137 for the trail. it was better in EVERY single aspect.

and honestly, i wish i had gone 144, and may be doing that over the summer

[Cat45]

Just now, Tommcat said:

having actually switched my own sled from a 129 to 137 mid season, so i know exactly what the differences were, i would never go shorter than a 136/137 for the trail. it was better in EVERY single aspect.

and honestly, i wish i had gone 144, and may be doing that over the summer

Why do you like longer? More traction for the big hp? I feel the opposite lol wasn't really thrilled with my 137. It was ok but I'd go back to a 129. We ride lots of tight trails 

[Doug]

I'll stay with a 136/137.  Sled feels more planted.  Had a 129 in 2019 and it was a little better in the tight trails but more than once felt the rear of the sled starting to come around on some corners.  There really is only 3 to 4 inches more of track on the ground between to two.  Had a 136 with tipped rails and 137 without last year and couldn't really tell the difference between the two.  Now if you through in a 146 Assault that's where the difference would be notable.

[Ez ryder]

I have been saying 136 is the ideal trail skid for 17 fucking yrs . Back then most would argue all fucking day that 121 was the only way to go . That is also about the last yr I ran studs 

 

[mnstang]

I'll take a 121 all day 

[Crnr2Crnr]

14 hours ago, Mag6240 said:

@Crnr2Crnr You thinking about a new Polaris??  😂

I’ve preferred 136” myself, those couple extra lugs on the snow really help in the situations Levi pointed out with a little better traction.  If it’s slower than the 128” in a few corners so be it.  And I’m glad he pointed the storage options, as someone who does a few over night trips a year, that is a must for me.

No, but if I was it would be difficult to decide between the XCR 650 128 and Cross Country 600 136

The overhead drone shots in the corners were interesting to watch and even he mentioned it's about fun and how the sled feels.

14 hours ago, Tommcat said:

having actually switched my own sled from a 129 to 137 mid season, so i know exactly what the differences were, i would never go shorter than a 136/137 for the trail. it was better in EVERY single aspect.

and honestly, i wish i had gone 144, and may be doing that over the summer

For Massachusetts trails, or Maine Autobahn trails with the big turbo? 

 

6 hours ago, mnstang said:

I'll take a 121 all day 

with or without fun factor? 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Crnr2Crnr

[stinkipinki]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:05 AM, mnstang said:

Tipped rails are a gimmick.  Most any new sled buyer can buy whatever they want, they're all expensive.

Might as well start an oil thread.

I dunno man.
My 09 Nytro XTX was a 144 with a tipped rail, and it felt like a 136 on the trail, but more of a 144 off trail.
As far as the 128/129 vs 136/137, the 136/137 is where its at. The machine's just hook up so much better. It's no surprise the Tcat and SRX are only 137's. If I pick up a 1056 or 998 Turbo, it will be alteast a 137....a 129, even with studs, isn't enough meat.

Edited April 7, 2023 by stinkipinki

[Bontz]

Give me the 136/137 ... even if it's only a few inches more track on the ground, I like the added traction.  Not that I don't enjoy swapping sleds & riding my buddy's 128" - especially if we're shittin' & gettin' through tight stuff.  But overall, I like the 136/137.

[Cat45]

11 hours ago, Doug said:

I'll stay with a 136/137.  Sled feels more planted.  Had a 129 in 2019 and it was a little better in the tight trails but more than once felt the rear of the sled starting to come around on some corners.  There really is only 3 to 4 inches more of track on the ground between to two.  Had a 136 with tipped rails and 137 without last year and couldn't really tell the difference between the two.  Now if you through in a 146 Assault that's where the difference would be notable.

I think the difference is brand dependent too. My zr at 137 handled ok at normal speed but getting after it, it didn't work as well. I believe it had more to do with skid geometry than a few extra lugs on the ground. The 129 cats seem to transfer weight better where the 137 just has a dead sluggish feel to me

[Doug]

56 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

I think the difference is brand dependent too. My zr at 137 handled ok at normal speed but getting after it, it didn't work as well. I believe it had more to do with skid geometry than a few extra lugs on the ground. The 129 cats seem to transfer weight better where the 137 just has a dead sluggish feel to me

That could very well be.  Friend that was a long time Cat rider switch to Polaris and was set on buying a 129.  Now after owning it a season and riding my sled wish he would have went with a 136/137.  He even added more studs to get the sled more planted.

[SayatodaU.P.eh?]

Had both. Even two in the same chassis. 
If straight line traction/acceleration was what I was going for, I’d have the longer track. I’m happier with the 129 for what I bought the sled for. 

[mnstang]

4 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

No, but if I was it would be difficult to decide between the XCR 650 128 and Cross Country 600 136

The overhead drone shots in the corners were interesting to watch and even he mentioned it's about fun and how the sled feels.

For Massachusetts trails, or Maine Autobahn trails with the big turbo? 

 

with or without fun factor? 

 

 

 

 

Wtf I'll participate in the retarded oil thread what else do I have to do.

After reading comments, it seems people think the shorter track don't have enough traction for them.  To me I don't understand that and a reason why this comes down to individuals.  I don't even know what they mean.  Straight line traction from a dig??  If that's a reason they pick a trail sled then we have very different wants from a trail sled .  Or do they mean cornering traction and are afraid of the slightest bit of step out?  Who knows.  I can tell you that I want step out.  Just like he said in your video, it helps cornering.  I have fought 121" sleds that are too stuck to the trail, literally like glue (did I mention they were one twenty frickin one?) and they do not corner anywhere near as well as a sled that steps out.  Just like was said in the video.  They take WAY more rider energy because when they're that glued and they are glued in front with heavy carbide, it's a struggle to keep the ski down (women 600 need not apply) and it's just not as fast.  I've rode my zr9 for years try to figure out how to get the back end to step out just any amount at all because I knew it would help the sled so much.

In contrast, I have another 121 sled on a different chassis, and also shorter lug that is a cornering machine and a big part of that is because it steps out freely at will.  There's something about a sled when you're just starting the turn, you haven't even got to the turn yet but just starting to set up and at the slightest hint it, the sled is already stepping out.  There's just something about that.  Yes, it's fun as hell I'm not going to lie.  But it also gives the rider a confidence for turning the machine, knowing the sled is always going to be right there with you.  If you ever need to turn down further in a corner for any reason, you barely even get the thought out and the sled does it for you.  When a machine handles like this it's just begging you to corner, it wants to turn, there's no forces you're resisting or counter acting.

I will say, trails play a big difference.  My standard trails that I normally ride and enjoy, are likely on the end of the spectrum as far as being tighter, twistier, and more hard base/setup snow.  The 121 sled I mentioned that has stuck like glue to these trails before.. when I'd take that same sled to a different trail system on the opposite end of the spectrum that I'd consider riding... Higher speed flowing twisties, loose churned up snow, higher elevation snow... That sled would transform and be dialed for those trails but it's solely because in those snow conditions, the sled steps out and that alone changes the character of the entire machine and allows you to ride it in an entirely different way.  And my loosey goosey sled for local trails might be too loosey goosey on those higher speed trails with looser snow.

So.  Your individual and local trail/snow conditions play a big factor.

Individual rider preferences play a big factor.  Even responses I've read that prefer the long option will admit the short is better in the corners.... To me that's the only thing that matters.  To me that's what the entire conversation revolves around.  I couldn't imagine another trait that even really matters in this decision.  But some other riders value those traits more than cornering, to each their own.

Some riders may also be uncomfortable with a loose sled while other riders may highly value that characteristic.

And finally and possibly most importantly.  Placebo affects is real.  I'd wonder if some people claiming to tell such a difference could even Pepsi challenge the two.

And even if they could, to somehow know the difference they feel is strictly and solely responsible from the track length is somewhat laughable.  How much tuning of the suspension and chassis were done to each sled to come to the conclusion that they can proclaim these truths to the track length?  I know when I change the shock package and spring preloads on one of my 121 sleds this year, it made the sled more stable in a straight line and less squirrelly, and that's not even getting into anything more serious like moving arms or mount locations which could have a larger affect.  Even if someone takes one sled and extends or shorten the rails of their existing skid and feel a difference.. all that proves is the difference that one change makes on that one particular setup without changing anything else.   That sled I have that was too glued to the trail, I did improve it alot by trying multiple different tracks with different lug heights and also some suspension change.

If you take one two stroke engine and put a different pipe on it, can you proclaim that pipe to be better/worse from that one test?  Maybe the pipe didn't perform as well.. but maybe that pipe requires more timing or more heat.. some different tuning to make it work right.. and maybe them it would smash the other pipe.  Maybe it operates better at a different rpm range.  But all you did is bolt it onto one set-up and make a proclamation.  Maybe the one pipe is for a 600cc but you put it on a 440 and that's the reason.  Maybe the riders idea of performing well is different than others, the tester could be an ice fisherman and they're using a pipe made for snocross.  You could apply all these things to skid lengths.  Things things aren't usually so simple.

There are only two truths I think you can really say.  A shorter track has the potential to pivot easier and a long track has the potential to be more stable.  Everything else is tunable and even those two traits can be tuned significantly before realizing the potential.

Edited April 7, 2023 by mnstang

[favoritos]

1 hour ago, Cat45 said:

I think the difference is brand dependent too. My zr at 137 handled ok at normal speed but getting after it, it didn't work as well. I believe it had more to do with skid geometry than a few extra lugs on the ground. The 129 cats seem to transfer weight better where the 137 just has a dead sluggish feel to me

To a certain extend I'd agree.  I'd also argue that it's not just the brand.

Skid geometry is a big factor. 

@Tommcat, do you do the longer length with rail extensions and the 129 skidframe?  I'm asking because that seems like the sweet spot setup.  The stock 137 skid is easy to ride, but it's mellow.  The old 129 was not quite enough hookup unless you lifted the front.  It didn't have the "squat" effect on launch, so you had to work on flat launches.

BTW, the new 129 Cat is crazy.  Most riders have forgotten how to handle a bronco.  They might have a little learning factor if they go to that setup.  It's fun, but you have to work again.  I think a bit more length on that skid will really be fun with some bigger power.

[Cat45]

6 minutes ago, mnstang said:

Wtf I'll participate in the retarded oil thread what else do I have to do.

After reading comments, it seems people think the shorter track don't have enough traction for them.  To me this is a bizarre take and another reason why I don't seek validation from other people.  I don't even know what they mean.  Straight line traction from a dig??  If that's a reasonable they pick a trail sled then I feel sorry for them.  Or do they mean cornering traction and are afraid of the slightest bit of step out?  Who knows.  I can tell you that I want step out.  Just like he said in your video, it helps cornering.  I have fought 121" sleds that are too stuck to the trail, literally like glue (did I mention they were one twenty frickin one?) and they do not corner anywhere near as well as a sled that steps out.  Just like was said in the video.  They take WAY more rider energy because when they're that glued and they are glued in front with heavy carbide, it's a struggle to keep the ski down (women 600 need not apply) and it's just not as fast.  I've rode my zr9 for years try to figure out how to get the back end to step out just any amount at all because I knew it would help the sled so much.

In contrast, I have another 121 sled on a different chassis, and also shorter lug that is a cornering machine and a big part of that is because it steps out freely at will.  There's something about a sled when you're just starting the turn, you haven't even got to the turn yet but just starting to set up and at the slightest hint it, the sled is already stepping out.  There's just something about that.  Yes, it's fun as hell I'm not going to lie.  But it also gives the rider a confidence for turning the machine, knowing the sled is always going to be right there with you.  If you ever need to turn down further in a corner for any reason, you barely even get the thought out and the sled does it for you.  When a machine handles like this it's just begging you to corner, it wants to turn, there's no forces you're resisting or counter acting.

I will say, trails play a big difference.  My standard trails that I normally ride and enjoy, are likely on the end of the spectrum as far as being tighter, twistier, and more hard base/setup snow.  The 121 sled I mentioned that has stuck like glue to these trails before.. when I'd take that same sled to a different trail system on the opposite end of the spectrum that I'd consider riding... Higher speed flowing twisties, loose churned up snow, higher elevation snow... That sled would transform and be dialed for those trails but it's solely because in those snow conditions, the sled steps out and that alone changes the character of the entire machine and allows you to ride it in an entirely different way.

So.  Your individual and local trail/snow conditions play a big factor.

Individual rider preferences play a big factor.  Even responses I've read that prefer the long option will admit the short is better in the corners.... To me that's the only thing that matters.  To me that's what the entire conversation revolves around.  I couldn't imagine another trait that even really matters in this decision.  But some other riders value those traits more than cornering, to each their own.

Some riders may also be uncomfortable with a loose sled while other riders may highly value that characteristic.

And finally and possibly most importantly.  Placebo affects is real.  I'd wonder if some people claiming to tell such a difference could even Pepsi challenge the two.

And even if they could, to somehow know the difference they feel is strictly and solely responsible from the track length is somewhat laughable.  How much tuning of the suspension and chassis were done to each sled to come to the conclusion that they can proclaim these truths to the track length?  I know when I change the shock package and spring preloads on one of my 121 sleds this year, it made the sled more stable in a straight line and less squirrelly, and that's not even getting into anything more serious like moving arms or mount locations which could have a larger affect.  Even if someone takes one sled and extends or shorten the rails of their existing skid and feel a difference.. all that proves is the difference that one change makes on that one particular setup without changing anything else.  Heck even track type and lug height. 

If you take a two stroke engine and put a different pipe on it, can you proclaim that pipe to be better/worse from that one test?  Maybe the pipe didn't perform as well.. but maybe that pipe requires more timing or more heat.. some different tuning to make it work right.. and maybe them it would smash the other pipe.  But all you did is bolt it into one set-up and make a proclamation.  Maybe the one pipe is for a 600cc but you put it on a 440 and that's the reason.  Maybe the riders idea of performing well is different than others, the tester could be an ice fisherman and they're using a pipe made for snocross.  You could apply all these things to skid lengths.  Snowmobilers are the most simple minded of motorsport people I know.

There are only two truths I think you can really say.  A shorter track has the potential to pivot easier and a long track has the potential to be more stable.  Everything else is tunable and even those two traits can be tuned significantly before realizing the potential.

You are spot on with side bite/ stepping out in turns. My zr had a 1.25 ripsaw 2, with 2 studs per bar and no matter what adjustments i did it was tight in the corners. I switched to a 1.75 backcountry x with 2 studs per bar for better off trail ability mainly but with the straight paddles it helped a ton on the trail. There was less side bite, and with some adjustments was way better than the sled in stock form. Track design has a huge impact in handling, i cringe everytime i read about a track being designed for more side bite in the corners 

[Crnr2Crnr]

6 minutes ago, mnstang said:

Wtf I'll participate in the retarded oil thread what else do I have to do.

After reading comments, it seems people think the shorter track don't have enough traction for them.  To me I don't understand that and a reason why this comes down to individuals.  I don't even know what they mean.  Straight line traction from a dig??  If that's a reason they pick a trail sled then we have very different wants from a trail sled .  Or do they mean cornering traction and are afraid of the slightest bit of step out?  Who knows.  I can tell you that I want step out.  Just like he said in your video, it helps cornering.  I have fought 121" sleds that are too stuck to the trail, literally like glue (did I mention they were one twenty frickin one?) and they do not corner anywhere near as well as a sled that steps out.  Just like was said in the video.  They take WAY more rider energy because when they're that glued and they are glued in front with heavy carbide, it's a struggle to keep the ski down (women 600 need not apply) and it's just not as fast.  I've rode my zr9 for years try to figure out how to get the back end to step out just any amount at all because I knew it would help the sled so much.

In contrast, I have another 121 sled on a different chassis, and also shorter lug that is a cornering machine and a big part of that is because it steps out freely at will.  There's something about a sled when you're just starting the turn, you haven't even got to the turn yet but just starting to set up and at the slightest hint it, the sled is already stepping out.  There's just something about that.  Yes, it's fun as hell I'm not going to lie.  But it also gives the rider a confidence for turning the machine, knowing the sled is always going to be right there with you.  If you ever need to turn down further in a corner for any reason, you barely even get the thought out and the sled does it for you.  When a machine handles like this it's just begging you to corner, it wants to turn, there's no forces you're resisting or counter acting.

I will say, trails play a big difference.  My standard trails that I normally ride and enjoy, are likely on the end of the spectrum as far as being tighter, twistier, and more hard base/setup snow.  The 121 sled I mentioned that has stuck like glue to these trails before.. when I'd take that same sled to a different trail system on the opposite end of the spectrum that I'd consider riding... Higher speed flowing twisties, loose churned up snow, higher elevation snow... That sled would transform and be dialed for those trails but it's solely because in those snow conditions, the sled steps out and that alone changes the character of the entire machine and allows you to ride it in an entirely different way.

So.  Your individual and local trail/snow conditions play a big factor.

Individual rider preferences play a big factor.  Even responses I've read that prefer the long option will admit the short is better in the corners.... To me that's the only thing that matters.  To me that's what the entire conversation revolves around.  I couldn't imagine another trait that even really matters in this decision.  But some other riders value those traits more than cornering, to each their own.

Some riders may also be uncomfortable with a loose sled while other riders may highly value that characteristic.

And finally and possibly most importantly.  Placebo affects is real.  I'd wonder if some people claiming to tell such a difference could even Pepsi challenge the two.

And even if they could, to somehow know the difference they feel is strictly and solely responsible from the track length is somewhat laughable.  How much tuning of the suspension and chassis were done to each sled to come to the conclusion that they can proclaim these truths to the track length?  I know when I change the shock package and spring preloads on one of my 121 sleds this year, it made the sled more stable in a straight line and less squirrelly, and that's not even getting into anything more serious like moving arms or mount locations which could have a larger affect.  Even if someone takes one sled and extends or shorten the rails of their existing skid and feel a difference.. all that proves is the difference that one change makes on that one particular setup without changing anything else.  Heck even track type and lug height. 

If you take a two stroke engine and put a different pipe on it, can you proclaim that pipe to be better/worse from that one test?  Maybe the pipe didn't perform as well.. but maybe that pipe requires more timing or more heat.. some different tuning to make it work right.. and maybe them it would smash the other pipe.  But all you did is bolt it into one set-up and make a proclamation.  Maybe the one pipe is for a 600cc but you put it on a 440 and that's the reason.  Maybe the riders idea of performing well is different than others, the tester could be an ice fisherman and they're using a pipe made for snocross.  You could apply all these things to skid lengths.  Snowmobilers are the most simple minded of motorsport people I know.

There are only two truths I think you can really say.  A shorter track has the potential to pivot easier and a long track has the potential to be more stable.  Everything else is tunable and even those two traits can be tuned significantly before realizing the potential.

holy shit... but what about keeping the skis firmly planted vs. a sled that wants to lift the skis... you know, for more fun factor?  

 

 

[Cat45]

2 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

holy shit... but what about keeping the skis firmly planted vs. a sled that wants to lift the skis... you know, for more fun factor?  

 

 

I don't mind the ski lift if it's controllable by body position. That's the biggest difference i find between the axys and procross. The axys can lift skis or stsy planted all from body position. The procross is planted all the time. Imo the procross is for lazy riders. I'm starting to think the coupling was more important on the older sit down/ early rider forward sleds than it is now. With an active rider and a responsive sled it shouldn't be hard to get it to turn or lift skis over holes in the trail

[Mag6240]

5 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

I don't mind the ski lift if it's controllable by body position. That's the biggest difference i find between the axys and procross. The axys can lift skis or stay planted all from body position. The procross is planted all the time. Imo the procross is for lazy riders. I'm starting to think the coupling was more important on the older sit down/ early rider forward sleds than it is now. With an active rider and a responsive sled it shouldn't be hard to get it to turn or lift skis over holes in the trail

THIS!!  Sure, I could adjust to have one or the other be better, but as @Crnr2Crnr pointed out, you gotta have that "Fun Factor" 

[Tommcat]

46 minutes ago, favoritos said:

To a certain extend I'd agree.  I'd also argue that it's not just the brand.

Skid geometry is a big factor. 

@Tommcat, do you do the longer length with rail extensions and the 129 skidframe?  I'm asking because that seems like the sweet spot setup.  The stock 137 skid is easy to ride, but it's mellow.  The old 129 was not quite enough hookup unless you lifted the front.  It didn't have the "squat" effect on launch, so you had to work on flat launches.

BTW, the new 129 Cat is crazy.  Most riders have forgotten how to handle a bronco.  They might have a little learning factor if they go to that setup.  It's fun, but you have to work again.  I think a bit more length on that skid will really be fun with some bigger power.

i've done them both ways, on my 2013 when i did it, i used extensions on the 129 rails. my newer 2016 turbo though is a factory 137. that may turn into a 144 for next season though since 137 still doesnt hook.

[Crnr2Crnr]

38 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

I don't mind the ski lift if it's controllable by body position. That's the biggest difference i find between the axys and procross. The axys can lift skis or stsy planted all from body position. The procross is planted all the time. Imo the procross is for lazy riders. I'm starting to think the coupling was more important on the older sit down/ early rider forward sleds than it is now. With an active rider and a responsive sled it shouldn't be hard to get it to turn or lift skis over holes in the trail

I don't have enough Axys/Matryx saddle time to compare them... @Ziemannand @taperk600 do though.

31 minutes ago, Mag6240 said:

THIS!!  Sure, I could adjust to have one or the other be better, but as @Crnr2Crnr pointed out, you gotta have that "Fun Factor" 

terrain dominator...

 

is this an actual snowmobile discussion that hasn't gone off the rails yet?