On the 2012 models, the XFs were geared lower than the F models (this has changed for 2013, which I’ll report on in the coming days). There are geometry and arm-length differences as well, all of which reflect the fact that the XF skid is adopted from the M’s rear suspension, which emphasises traction, weight transfer and drivability in deep snow, rather than hardpack handling and bumps. Instead of rear torsion springs, the XF skidframe uses either a coil-over unit on the rear arm (as pictured here) or a Fox Float 2. In the F (top), the skidframe utilizes rear coupling (which produces a significant difference in handling characterstics), the Slide-Action front arm and the Torque Sensing Link, none off which are used on the XF’s skidframe (bottom). The skidframes are also significantly different. No doubt the track length contributes to the inherent strengths/weaknesses of both machines, but it’s not the only factor. pitch for 2013), while the XF (bottom) gets a 141-in. The most significant difference between the two machines occurs at the tail end, with the track length often getting most of the attention. So a few weeks ago, while riding and evaluating the 2013 model year Arctic Cats near West Yellowstone, I spent several days riding Fs and XFs with this very question in mind, in addition to spending an entire day comparing an F800 Sno Pro to an XF800 Sno Pro with my cohort, Kale Wainer. It’s a common question, one I debated myself for a few days before opting for the ’12 F1100.
0 kommentar(er)
