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

[Tommcat]

5 hours ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

 

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

 

Maine. I dont ride in mass

[Tommcat]

19 hours ago, Cat45 said:

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 

traction is my biggest issue

[Simple Jim]

My biggest issue is my brother uncle jim keeps fucking sasquatch and makes the family watch the video of him getting jack hammered in his doo doo hole while wearing a micky mouse outfit. 

[Cat45]

31 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

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

terrain dominator...

 

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

With the catalyst being more responsive than the procross i think the uncoupled 129 is them experimenting with the public on uncoupled sleds. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 137 uncoupled in the next year or 2 with the bigger engine. 

[Crnr2Crnr]

50 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

With the catalyst being more responsive than the procross i think the uncoupled 129 is them experimenting with the public on uncoupled sleds. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 137 uncoupled in the next year or 2 with the bigger engine. 

any feedback on shorter/longer Procross vs Polaris?

[mnstang]

2 hours 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?  

 

 

Now if I need more ski plant I strap a starter to one ski and a battery to the other one.  Makes good use of that feminine trash that sledders demand 

[Cat45]

18 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

any feedback on shorter/longer Procross vs Polaris?

Ridden a 129 procross, 137 procross. 144 assault. Smooth/choppy trail handling 129> 144>137. Big bumps, was the same. Both 129 and 137 coupling blocks removed. I feel the suspension works better without the blocks, seems to ride nicer with a bit of transfer but not enough. Wish i could ride short xcr to compare but all the guys i ride with are on 144s

[Cat45]

C2c i know this isn't the type of riding you do but we do alot of off trail where a crossover would probly be better. I tried making my rr better with the 1.75, it helped but not enough. Imo for this type of riding or even really rough trail like xc racing the sliding front arm is the problem. Anytime you let off the gas the skid shifts forward and up lifting the front of the rail off the snow and massively transfering weight to the skis. Combine this with a sluggish responding chassis it makes it hard to keep the nose up in whooped out corners and deeper snow. On smoother trails or ice racing it's great but any kind of bumps or deep snow it sucks. I'm really interested in the 129 uncoupled catalyst because from what I've seen there's no sliding front and no tsl link in the rear 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Cat45

[Deephaven]

7 hours ago, stinkipinki said:

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.
 

Lol, a shorty nitro feels like a long track compared to a modern machine.

Either way, an Assault is easy as hell to handle on twisty trails so going shorter isn't really necessary....but I am not a fan of how long uncoupled skids jump.  Skis straight up is just not fun.  Longest coupled skid that solves that is the 13x.

[Crnr2Crnr]

2 hours ago, Deephaven said:

Lol, a shorty nitro feels like a long track compared to a modern machine.

Either way, an Assault is easy as hell to handle on twisty trails so going shorter isn't really necessary....but I am not a fan of how long uncoupled skids jump.  Skis straight up is just not fun.  Longest coupled skid that solves that is the 13x.

easy to say when you can grab the rim on a basketball backboard without getting on your tippy toes... 

but yeah, from my limited ride on an Assault 600 on trails I know very well it handled above my expectations.  conversely my buddy didn't want to give back the 128. 

lots of variables... but good conversation thusfar.

 

[Doug]

9 hours ago, Cat45 said:

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 

Tap the brakes to make the back a little loose to come around that's basically the method I use.  When I had a 129" sled at least for me it was tap the brakes and feel the back break loose and start to come around was twitchy was not good.  For me the sweet spot is a 136/137.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Doug

[Cat45]

3 minutes ago, Doug said:

Tap the brakes to make the back a little loose t come around that's basically the method I use.  When I had a 129" sled at least for me it was tap the brakes and feel the back break loose and start to come around was not good.  For me the sweet spot is a 136/137.

Everyone has their own expectations of performance. Different sleds, setups, snow conditions, riding style, and experience all play a huge part. It's pretty impossible to determine what's the best length sled since we all have different needs/wants and the conditions are so different from place to place.