Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just like the title says.. I'm thinking about trying something different this year with the new 800 etec. I'm putting on an ice ripper 1.25 track and thinking about putting on 96 additional conventional studs (best of both worlds(light weight with the most traction), camoplast says not to add conventional studs to this track, why not? Are the ribs thinner or something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
if you put in conventional studs you void the fact that it is an ice ripper....might as well sell it and pick up a ripsaw and stud that...

i really dont see why you would want to add studs to that track anyway....

to answer your question...lol...i dont know why they tell you not too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The reason I wanted to go this route is to have the lightweight ice ripper studs with the stiffer lug, and add a few more conventional studs for optimum traction, but not have the weight of the 160+ conventional studs. On Camoplast's website it says not to stud, just wondering why? Didn't know if the space between the lugs was too thin to handle studs (even the single ply specific studs).. Any personal experiences?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,254 Posts
I've read before that that track was specifically designed to NOT be studded with conventional studs. And besides, studs are for ice only, so if you put conventional studs in it and drove on the ice, the conventional studs would be taking most of the stress before the "lug studs" even touched the ice. Thats my opinion at least. I'm sure it would be a decent set up, but if the conventional studs all ripped out easily and destroyed the track...it wouldn't be worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I had the ice ripper on a 440 race sled and it was a great track you could spin the track in the turns but it would grab on icy trails and turns. If you want that pin cushion feel stud a regular track. the main benefit of the ice ripper was grip but no rotating weight that would sap horse power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks for the input!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Just get a 1.5 track and stud it 1.75 and call it a day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
I would also think you're defeating the purpose.

The ice ripper is heavier than a standard track without studs, but lighter than one with studs.

If you're going to do an ice ripper with studs, then you're definately heavier than either of the first options.

Either put an ice ripper on it, or do a standard ripsaw and studs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I would also think you're defeating the purpose.

The ice ripper is heavier than a standard track without studs, but lighter than one with studs.

If you're going to do an ice ripper with studs, then you're definately heavier than either of the first options.

Either put an ice ripper on it, or do a standard ripsaw and studs.
Actually, from the tracks usa website, the ice ripper xt is lighter in the 15x137x1.25, compared to the ripsaw lite 15x137x125, and the '11's come with a 16 wide, so indeed heavier yet. Which doesn't make much sense. The Ice ripper must really be light between the lugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,254 Posts
I think the 1.5" might rob too much top end.
Just gotta decide what you want the most, top end, traction on ice, traction in loose snow. Or in my opinion, the best all around option, a studded 1.25" track. Too bad there wasn't a 2 ply 2.86 pitch Predator in a 1.25"

I find the most fun I have is usually under 80mph, so I chose a 1.375" track and lots of studs, gives me good traction everywhere but still enough top end (well...thats my theory lol). Not many choices for tracks in the 2.86 pitch...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
I studded my 137" Iceripper XT With 96 Woodys std. 2 ply old megabites and double backers in the center band for added bite on my 215 HP turbo XR1200. It needed more bite and now its just perfect.

Use the Iceripper XT for less rotating mass and minimal studs and it will MPH better than a bunch of large headed extra studs slinging around your neighbors studded sled.

IceripperXT vs same lug height and width track with 144 conventional studs is 5 MPH faster!
 

·
Mass Confussion
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
If you are into big hole shots or hard acceleration the ice ripper may not be for you. IMO it more on the safety side than performance. Good traction and braking for general trail riding. If you tend to ride more on the performance side of the scale I would go ripsaw 1.25 lug with 126 studs down the middle in the 4-2-4-2 pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Great input guys, keep it coming. I havent' had good luck with the single ply ripsaw, from the fingers(lugs) standpoint, or the studding part(studs pulled through with studboys single ply studs), so I'm hoping the iceripper xt have a little more durable lugs, I like the idea of the double backer. I've got the doubles on my shorty and they're holding up great (double back for the single ply track specific) but I think I can use 2-ply double backers like knappattack said! Thanks for all your input!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
I ran a 2 ply ice ripper track without the little studs this past year on my TNT. Track did'nt hold up very well imo, missing 5-6 of the fingers (lugs). Going to run a cobra this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Well, there goes that idea. I'm sure the single ply will be even worse then, and down around here in iowa, conditions are usually snirty. Looking for a durable option with studs and lightweight. Thanks for the update 2006revss.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top