Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ripsaw II 1.5 Review

Sleds:
2012 XRS 800 -120 Ripsaw II 1.5
2016 XRS 800 -129 Ice Attack 1.22
2016 XRS 800 -137 Ripsaw I 1.5
2016 Blizzard -129 Ice Ripper 1.25

The two ply construction is well built with a solid/paddle pattern. The track shows no wear at this time and conditions have varied during use. After installation minor adjusted were needed on the sled to regain optional engine rpm. One tooth was reduced on top gear and 1 gram removed from clutch.

Snow conditions:
Loose snow - The track is great in loose snow with exceptional traction and the ability to still slide it around corners.
Hard pack - Additional spinning and increased sliding when braking.
Powder - Increased floatation and still haven't got it stuck even in 39 inches of fresh powder.

Comparison from stock track:
Stock track was the Ripsaw I 1.25 with 84 1.325 gold diggers. Track held up exceptional well with no tear outs. Acceleration was Ok with increased spinning. Stopping was solid and controlled. Top speed 111mph.

New Ripsaw II 1.5. Track is looking as good as new. Acceleration is a solid 5+ sleds over stock track. Stopping distance has decreased on most surfaces. Top speed 103mph. The Ripsaw II has more track noise compared to stock Ripsaw.

Direct comparisons:
2016 XRS 800 129 Ice Attack 1.22 vs 2012 XRS 800 120 Ripsaw II 1.5
1. Cornering - Very similar feel to both sleds slightly more bite on Ripsaw II
2. Acceleration - Ripsaw II jumps Ice Attack by 5 sled lengths and will stay ahead until 80-90mph. This is from a dead stop hard pack conditions. Roll on both sleds stay close within one sled length to about 80. The 129 ice attack is blistering fast on top end.
3. Braking - Ripsaw II better in soft/powder snow, Ice Attack better on hard pack
4. Speed - Ripsaw II 103mph, Ice Attack 116mph

2016 XRS 800 137 Ripsaw I 1.5 vs 2012 XRS 800 Ripsaw II 1.5
1. Cornering - More slide with the standard ripsaw I 1.5
2. Acceleration - Ripsaw II 1.5 jumps maybe 1 sled ahead
3. Braking - Ripsaw II 1.5 has better braking
4. Speed - Ripsaw II 103mph, Ripsaw 1 101mph
Additional information: I do believe the standard ripsaw I 1.5 is the best track for a 137 length sled because it gives you enough slide in the corners to not over power the front end. A very aggressive ski would be needed if this sled had a Ripsaw II 1.5

2016 XRS 800 129 Ice Attack 1.22 vs 2016 Blizzard 800 129 Ice Ripper 1.25
1. Cornering - No difference in the two
2. Acceleration - Ice Attack has a slight lead
3. Braking - Ice Attack is better
4. Speed - Dead even

Conclusion: Overall Im very impressed with the track. It performs as documented. I was concerned with the increased sliding when stopping so I installed 84 1.575 gold diggers for additional stopping power. Now I can say this is the perfect balance of on/off trail/slide/acceleration and stopping power.

If your not into studding. It would be awesome if we saw a Ice Attack 1.5 or Ripaw II 1.5 (Pre-studded) come out in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Very nice comparison, I'm running a Rip2 1.5" 129" on my 16 800 XRS. So far, it seems to hook and brake well, and I can agree that it feels as though its limiting top end a bit. Not a big concern of mine. I'd rather have the traction and corner to corner pull.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Thanks for the write up. Interesting you say the rip 2 has more side bite. It was my understanding it was designed to have less. Specifically for Yamaha sleds that like to push in the turns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
I have been running the Rip II 1.25 and now the 1.5 version of this track and its by far the best trail track it plain works. If I were to compare it to another it would be the old Predator track. The 1.5 lug just makes this track even better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
Thanks for the write up. Interesting you say the rip 2 has more side bite. It was my understanding it was designed to have less. Specifically for Yamaha sleds that like to push in the turns.
I was wondering the same thing. Is it an apples to oranges compairison if the tracks aren't studded the same?

A 120" ripsaw ll wouldn't normally have less side slide than a 137 Ripsaw l.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The ripsaw II 1.5 120 and 137 ripsaw I 1.5 are studded the same so now they are apples to apples. The ripsaw II has less sliding in corners than ripsaw I. I believe when it states it has less side traction it's compared to a solid lug to the sides of the track. All the way around the II is better than the I. Traction, acceleration, deep snow, braking. I believe if this track was standard on the 137 large adjustments would be needed on steering and transfer of weight.
 

·
doughnut boy
Joined
·
10,120 Posts
Sounds like I'll be happy with mine . Just got it yesterday from Sled Parts. Just need to find some time to put it on my gade
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
My bud has an 16 800 Renagade X with the Cobra on it and he likes it says it's better in the powder , but it's lugs are softer than the Ripsaw II so it could wear quicker .

I have a Ripsaw II 1.5 on my 03 BM 800 X with a 137 extension and 168 picks and it bites hard on hardpack/groomed snow . Don't even have to sit back to bring the skis up .
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top