you call me at 819 334 2903Originally Posted by mtims101
patenteux still at work
Marcel
you call me at 819 334 2903
patenteux still at work
Marcel
I do have some input re: steel channel tracks, so please hang in there (long post)
It is no secret that I am partial to the elevated belt style tracks here in Alaska for a number of reasons. I have tried, modified, and/or replicated virtually every track (factory and aftermarket and many one-offs since it is truly the only way to find out what works everywhere and what is able to prevent side effects in real world scenarios- long trips, heavy loads, all conditions, (even flat tires). Some of my opinions have changed over time with what I have learned, while others have not. I have also repaired other aftermarket tracks that have shown up here and suffered some problems.
I do help locals here in AK with setting up their machines properly for our conditions, so please consider that perspective.
While I have built tons of bar channel tracks in the elevated belt style, I do have some reservations about the steel bar channel tracks if they are not executed properly, and I now feel that they should not be used on newer/heavier machines with wider tires. It took several years, but we have been able to find their durability limitations. Now, I (more appropriately) consider the bar channel grousers an economical option for lighter weight machines with narrow tires like argo conquest/response or polaris 6x6. Even then, when making them for these lighter machines, I never exceed 4” grouser spacing and also lengthen the track just a smidge to prevent it from being over tightened by the end user who might want to drive fast over bumps but does not want their track to bounce up into the tub. By design and with guides that cannot manipulate, the track does not need to be tight, but that does not stop everyone from trying.
UHMW on the other hand better handles the repetitive stress of going around the corner tires in the event the track is overtightened. It is stiff and very strong but can flex slightly in the middle of the tread if needed. A steel bar channel grouser on the other hand will eventually crack if abused in this way, so I adjust the track to design around this fact if someone wants a steel track (and I give them extra cleats).
Within the elevated belt track category, I strongly feel that for the best long term durability (meaning youre not going to fatigue, frequently badly bend, or break the grousers (cleats) if the track is 1) overtightened (it happens) or 2)used in very severe conditions like rocks, ruts, and squished against trees, then my preferred option, especially on heavier machines with tires wider than 10” is to make solid, through-bolted UHMW grousers with heavy duty conveyor belting and a simple unbreakable overlap hinge. No rusting, bending, or breaking. It also gives less weight penalty in the water and can be made to be as aggressive as you want with added traction.
I also love the original timmins ontario shaped Escargo tracks (smallest contact patch) and they are stronger than bar channel.
We tried (quite a few years back) mixing escargo steel grousers with UHMW and called it a “hybrid.”. I do not feel that the “hybrid” has any real merit after significant testing in Alaska. Not enough weight savings and gives up the main traction advantage of all-steel escargo. I feel it’s better to go all steel or all-UHMW with aggressive traction enhancers added if needed.
The steel bar channel track is a very good track but will require grouser maintenance/replacement if heavily used/abused. That’s the main thing I want to stress. Excellent economical track otherwise but no longer my preferred go-to for the locals up here.
One more thing, you really benefit from track tuner use. Only way to avoid it is to run quad tracks (think centaur style 4-track system)....in the elevated belt design. Bar channel low-profile tracks work well for this because of tire clearance issues. Conquest type machines w/22” tires and also Frontier/Avenger machines with 24x10 tires can do it. Okay probably enough, Jeff
good , educational info buzz. no doubt you have lots of experience from all your track testing , etc. i like the idea that tracks don't normally need to be super tight . after modifying my original max 2 adair tracks a few times , i feel i finally have them working well . it performs better too with the front chains removed. now i'm just waiting for a good snow here in va. thanks , and have a great new year . johnboy va.
So Buzz if the Channel tracks are no long your preferred track for Alaska anymore what is? We have similar terrain in Alberta for the most part and I'm curious. I'm still rocking the Escargo's and Rubber tracks for winter.
I could use your expertise trying to solve some axle issues I'm having. I was breaking mid axles for a while even with track tuners. I was trying to control tub slap like mentioned especially with the Escargo's so I was trying to run them more snug then loose.
I seem not to be breaking axles crossing big logs but rather over 3-4" logs at trail speeds of 5-10kph. It's always when you least expect it and some of the logs are small enough to be covered in grass and hard to see.
I ended up getting tired of this so I went with all forged axles on all 8 wheels, well last trip out with the rubber tracks in a clean cut block through a small depression in the ground I snapped a front axle even with the bearing extension? I was blown away by this...
Most of the axles are shearing off clean at the bearing, one weld seemed to fail at the flange and a couple between the sprockets. Any suggestions?
Buzz, I always enjoy your input that comes from trial and error experience.
Sparx, I think the rubber tracks by far cause the most wear and tear on our machines. There is a reason ARGO has continued to strengthen the drivetrain to survive using a flat snowmachine belt surface that is difficult to turn and tgaf uses guides tgaf are hard on tire sidewalls. Lowering tire psi will gelp with shock-load type axke failures but causes other track tension related problems with the factory rubber track. One of many readons I dont like it.
I still build and use the steel bar channel track frequently but only use it on machines with 10/11” tires or narrower. I also add extra grousers and lengthen a little to limit stress. Steel can fatigue and develop cracks if abused with too much tension. More commonly you’ll see bent grousers from abusive conditions but occasionally some develop cracks. Other times they hold up great for a long time, just depends on the end user. But the 12” wide tires and heavier machines seeem to be more prone to bending steel grousers.
So for these machines I insist on solid through bolted UHMW grousers (I make them interchangeable with the steel grousers for previously built tracks too) so that these machines that put the most stress on the tracks (heavier, more distance between track belts/leverage on grousers, lower gearing, higher hp, tracks can ge run tight) do not and cannot break the track grousers (I still have never seen it happen). So for Avengers, Auroras, Centaurs, ect, An Elevated belt through bolted UHMW grouser makes for a maintenance free track that works everywhere and gives all the benefits of my favorite track style for Alaska. Both the steel channel and UHMW through-bolted do this, but a UHMW elevated belt track stands up to abuse. My material cost is more for the UHMW but it is what it is I guess.
As for axle damage with rubber tracks (or any tracks for that matter), my experience has been that lower/softer psi in tires does a lot to absorb unexpected shock loads. So does slowing down. Another reason I prefer the elevated belt track- You’ll automatically reduce your crawling speed by 25% and your track does not need to be tight (there are no guide tips to manipulate), so running very low psi is just fine, and with some of the newer rims, preferable. In fact it’s basically a run flat set-up.
Onlyonce- I happy to share info good and bad
So Buzz, just for a mental image for others you are talking a track such as channel, escargo, adair, beaver dam etc..
What have you found to be the best belt widths for both deep snow , tundra, and general mud use? Do any widths affect water speed along with grouser designs? Have you attempted, though costly, a chevron design yet?
My new beer holder spilled some on the trails - in it's hair and down it's throat.
Joe Camel never does that.
Advice is free, it's the application that costs.
It's great that this thread keeps updating with new info about these tracks. That being said I will give my two cents about my experience with this track system. The machine I have been using them on is a 2004 Conquest with a GU (granny) transmission. I'm using 22x11x8 Carlisle Stryker tires with tracker tuners on the middle four hubs. I got my Chanel tracks from Marcel approx 5-6 years ago now and I use them exclusively for snow. And when I say snow, I'm talking high elevation (8000-10000 feet) deep (several feet) snow. I did use the tracks for a small time as they came to me and that is in a 20" wide version. They did pretty good, but I noticed that since they have rather aggressive grousers they can dig down fairly fast, especially in loose snow so I made some modifications to them. I first replaced the outside 4" belt with a 6" belt making them 22" wide and then I bolted on approx 4" wide x 2" high angle aluminum paddles on both the inside and outside belt next to every other grouser. That is a nice design benefit to the elevated belts is you can put paddles on the inside belt without hitting the tub of the machine. I used flex-co 550 belt lacing for the track hinge. I changed the stock front axles/bearings out for the heavy duty version to help take any additional stress and weight they take. I run the tracks fairly tight with 2-3" sag under the middle tires and with psi in the tires ranging from 6-7 psi. I was experiencing some tire slippage and to stop that I drilled and bolted two small bolts on each grouser to give the front/rear tires more traction and that solved any slippage issues. This set up runs very smooth and I get very good gas mileage considering the weight of this set up. I have taken the whole family with a lot of gear several miles to backcountry locations multiple times and I have had ZERO issues and have been very impressed with it's capabilities. Adding the wider belt helps a lot with floatation. I have around 200 hours on the machine with this set up and I am still on the original chains and bearings.
I just purchased a brand new (2018) Frontier 8x8 Scout/LE with a 26.5 HP EFI Kohler and I am going to transition this track system over to this machine this Fall. I will have to lengthen them some because of the wheelbase difference and I have to get another set of tires/rims (10" stock tires are too skinny). I am trying to decide on that combo currently.
argojim- I am referring to elevated belt style tracks that have the top of the grouser guide through-bolted to the elevated belt. Escargo, Channel, UHMW grouser elevated belt. When the belt is on top, the top of the guides are fixed-position and unable to manipulate. Instead, the ground-contact portion of each grouser moves away from its neighboring grouser as it goes around corner tires, even though the guide tips (through-bolted to the elevated belt)never change position. In this way the track doesnt require increased tension for the guides to continue working (especially important in the event of flat/leaky tires). This also makes the contact patch as narrow as possible and raises the belt edge off the ground when traction and easy-turning is wanted but massive floatation isn’t needed yet. When you do sink into soft terrain (mud/snow/swamp) then you in fact get the massive floatation of wide belts, full tire width cleanout and grouser paddle surface for propulsion. Uneven ground isn’t able to manipulate the narrow contact patch track (and therefore guides) near as easily. Sticks also cannot fall in between the guides (because the belt is on top) like they can on tracks with tire guide tips(argo rubber, adair, argo supertracks). In fact the elevated belt protects tire sidewalls because the guides cannot be leveraged in, and sticks cannot be trapped between guides as the track drives along. In that scenario a stick becomes a lever and the guide becomes a fulcrum to slash a tire. This cannot happen with an elevated belt track, and you will never break any of the tire guides.
An elevated belt track with a contact patch of 10, 11, or 12” wide with a belt edge lifted off the ground will always skid turn easiest, even if the overall width is 22 or even 30” wide. In fact you are able to skid turn right through, up and over certain obstacles that would otherwise wheel-chalk tracks that have edges on the ground.
If you use tracks strictly in mud or snow (any style) the track (and tires) suffers far less wear. Any track will help to get you through the soft stuff (some better than others), but it’s all the other conditions you have to transition through that are typically hard on machines and tires. Elevated belt tracks take care of this problem as well.
In my opinion there is a good, better, best approach to how some have attempted to build this style track. I no longer mix steel and UHMW “hybrids”. I also don’t agree with the approach of oversizing the paddle shape to the extent that the contact patch is too wide, square, or requires oversized wheel spacers. Instead make the contact patch as small as possible and add wide belts instead. I prefer 19” to 21” overall width for a main track with an additional belt of 5 or 6” for extreme snow depths. I prefer to have the tire sidewall belt edge sit back from the guide itself, and it should be cut/beveled so that it doesn’t touch the tire. I have seen metal hinges wear out, and hinge pin bolts break or nuts come off. There is also a risk of a hinge pin rubbing a tire or machine skid plate if not designed correctly. I now strictly use a big meaty overlap hinge with through bolts that face the same direction as the bolts that affix the grousers to the track. The track ends are still brought together in one spot for easy installation, and the through bolts are unable to cause any rubbing, they cannot work loose, and the overlap method never wears out or breaks.
argojim,almost forgot, the wider the track tge better it works in mud and snow. I have tried individual chevron paddles but was not impressed. The best paddles so far have been about 2” tall x 5-6” long positioned at a 45 degree angle to the grousers (positioned on the elevated belts so that tge grouser and added rubber paddles create one big chevron). if that makes sense. Bigger and taller paddles didn’t seem to help either. So far every 4th or 5th grouser works best. Some paddles I thought for sure wiukd help, didnt make much difference, so you gotta test, it’s a pain in the butt. But really for truly fast (relative) water speed, thats what outboards or tow-skiffsare for.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
