Escargo and Adair Tracks comparison

[Buzz]

I've had a chance to "play" around lately with several track combinations. My focus has always been the Escargo in all-steel, UHMW, and various hybrid combinations and widths, as well as half-track Escargos. The elevated belt design comes along with tremendous guide-stability...and resistance to throwing off. That along with gear-reduction are the most desirable...to me anyway.
This past fall, I felt it was probably time to give Adair's Pro-Series track a try on the same machine.
Regarding the track itself, I discovered some interesting things about required track-tension, tire-guide movement, and some machine conditions/situations you should try to avoid with this track. I've also received some input from a few members on here. I've also got a few thoughts on why 1.5" vs. 1" UHMW is used. Narrow Belt-slot clearance to the tire (strength) and general crosser-body (and therefore guide) stablilty over the belt come to mind. The 1/2" additional thickness (1.5) helps here, but mainly because it's needed. Belt tension (very tight) is absolutely needed. You still cannot eliminate guide "tilting" in certain situations. Maybe "light" machines don't have the issues I did.

I had it come off a couple times in situations I really didn't expect it to..mild side-hilling/turning on soft terrain. Wanting to give this design a "fair" shake...because of all the internet-promotion,...I thought I must be missing something. So, I opted to router-out some "tweaked" "Pro-Series" style crossers 1.5" thick. I was always curious about materials and labor in comparison to my other experiments. I opted for a flatter tire-radius shape that couldn't stuff as much belt-width within the crosser-body itself @ 14.5" (on purpose). 14.5" is a magic # that allows an additional crosser in each row to fit on the 4x10 sheet in CAD if I remember right. So it only seems natural to try to maximize belt-width within 14.5" even if it means altering the tire-guide radius. I opted to leave the crosser ends open to scoot the belt out a bit(and for wider belts if wanted...a couple/three inches of hangover is okay as an option), as well as adding a full-thickness (from ground-surface to tire-tread) "slot" for a 3/16" steel insert that is sandwiched together with through-and-through mechanical fasteners....not screws, and it's dead-center within the UHMW...so thick walls on either side.. .. Ala Escargo Hybrid.
This provides forward/backward traction with no resistance to lateral "skidding". It also prevents UHMW wear...and the inserts are replaceable. Increased labor...yes. But, they'll be directly under the tire, and they won't pack with snow like u-channel does. And talk about strong. UHMW height and steel height can be adjusted for overal crosser-height and tub-clearance. As they are, the Pro-Series crossers require no washers or backer plates- they use (2) outdoor lag fasteners. So nylocs and loc-tite can be skipped. No pre-drilling of rubber either (huge time saver). Seems to be a great bang-for-the-buck for the track-maker...... $300 more for 1/2" thicker material, but less "hardware" cost required make it a wash. The lag fasteners look strong.. (I haven't heard any reports of them backing out). They are being used as replacment for lag-bolts on deck ledger boards, ect...so I'm sure they're strong. But we'll see. I like nuts and bolts.
Routering costs for me were very comparable for 1.5" pro-shape vs. other shapes I have played with. All included pre-drilled holes, and routered inside edges. You get more "pro" crossers off a sheet. Takes 4-5 additional crossers per side vs. elevated belt. Remember....way less labor and less hardware for pro-series so again a wash in my mind. The sheet is the expensive part....especially freight to Alaska. I am experimenting with a different grade of UHMW vs. typical re-processed as well. I am happy to share more information and testing as it comes along. Assembly of a few sets is getting close. Escargo Hybrid vs. Pro-Series in all terrains. Well at least I'll know for sure...of my own accord. The track staying on will be my focus.
The escargo turned much easier in the tundra for what that's worth.
Twin-track escargo eliminates differing wheel speeds over the center tires as well (all things being equal) vs. using track tuners. Just another option. Here's a few pics anyway for now. Hopefully nobody's pissed.
One design allows for different belt heights....elevated belt or tire-tread level with the same crosser.

[riotwarrior]

Quite interesting this is, I suspect these would be good in mud and such however on snow and hills with lots of snow I'm skeptical however having absolutely ZERO experience with tracks I'm in no position to really have my opinion hold water any more than a sieve can.

I can say I like what I see and am watching this very closely.

[Buzz]

I had less that 1" sag under my center tires when the pro-series were installed. The belting felt incredibly tight. Here's a pic side-loading the guide with my foot. I thought it was interesting to compare the sidewall-level where the overall guide-height fell on the tires - with both tracks. Not that much difference even though I've heard some other "claims"

[mightymaxIV]

Wow Bud, you are going a long way to prove your point. I think I would be satisfied just to know that each set of tracks and each design has advantages and disadvantages in certain areas. There is no perfect design although you seem to have hit on the best of both worlds with a hybrid design, still even with the hybrid there are weight and power issues depending on the machine and what it is to be used for.

That being said, chose what works for you, kick the tires, light the fires, and shoot some more video. The videos you posted of the 700 Argo and the Mudd Ox in winter conditions were most impressive.

I wish you could meet up the Octicruser who shoots all the 4x4 videos of the high lifted Quads and show him what a tracked Mudd Ox or Argo could do in those mud slurries that give the 4x4's such a hard time.

This is the guy I wish you could catch up to with those toy mud holes that give the 4x4's fits, my tracked Argo Frontier would laugh at these mud holes.

[guyfox]

Looks like it is going to take a few more cables to get some of those machines out. They should be more careful when pulling out machines when the winch cable breaks. They should put a jacket or something over the cable so when it breaks it will not snap back and hurt or even worse kill someone.

[Buzz]

Dan, I just enjoy playing around and "projecting" (I know some of you can relate). Alaskan conditions are different, and like you said, different tracks can work in different areas. Track-talk has been a little slow latel, so we'll light a fire. Maybe I'll help prospective buyers line up all the dots. What's needed, what's not. Price and performance comparisons are very useful things. I have some recent experience I'd like to add.

Full disclosure. I actually thought the pro-series was going to be an acceptable solution for my long axle machine. I had been running an escargo all-steel track and simply wanted to experiment with the diesel and "extra power/efficiency) by disconnecting the center axles. I had already done this on my gas machine, and it seemed like it would be great to run a kutboa-diesel with this set-up as well. I was watching engine temps under constant load....knowing that my tires were "slipping". Everything was good, but I could only wonder how much better it could be. The kubota is amazing in power and efficiency. This particular machine was built with strength in mind. All long axles and long bearing cages every axle for heavy-duty track use. I had not been using track tuners (track tuners were not an option on this machine over the bolt-on mudd-ox hub....a wider tuner is required to clear the nut....and the hub is already 5" farther out to begin with).
I saw the pro-series track as an easy solution vs. swapping to standard-length center axles (buying new parts and labor + removing perfectly good parts). I posed a question...and Tim was willing to investigate...the possibility of an off-set rim + track tuner to match the tire centerline of the other axles. This was another option. Ultimately, I decided not to do this either. I'd have to buy more tuners, special rims...etc. Why not just throw on an open crosser track...that is reported to be very durable and bouyant (another excuse to try yet another set of tracks )...that would keep all tire speeds constant with the belting. For summer/fall conditions a 14.5" track like this would work...and I was curious....amazing reports. Seemed like a fun experiment. Adair was very helpful in getting a clearance track set...actually ended up being new parts headed my way. I had heard rave reviews from all angles on the internet. I won't repeat all the adjectives that have and continue to be used.

The bummer part is that in my conditions (Alaska), I had serious problems keeping the tracks on. There was also a huge difference in turning effort under certain conditions. I really don't care about much other than the tracks staying on. My set was build with a closer 4.5" pitch instead of the normal (I think) 5" pitch as well for better tire coverage and track-retainment.
I would like to figure out myself what the solution is for that design. On certain machines/loads/conditions...I think it can be problematic. For you guys down there, it seems to be working great in the mud and swamp and terrain parks. My conditions are different. So we'll have some fun and get some good video...hopefully not the same ole same ole. If you put out a design, it's only natural for others to give you feedback.

On another note, I will be swapping out my machine to centaur-style square-profile turf tires and running a twin-track Escargo on the mudd-ox 81" wheelbase (hopefully I got that spec right). I am particularly interested in the redundancy of twin-tracks that would be even more difficult to throw (if that's even possible). Also, it doesn't require track tuners (which I can't run anyway)...and keeps all (8) axles driven. I'll index the tires similar to argo and "pro-series" installation recommendations (every track should do that to keep the load on the proper side of the chains...in the forward direction...at least if #2 is the driver). The open-crosser design allows for negligible slip if needed as the tire breaks contact with individual crossers, unlike a solid rubber end-wrap tire. A Pro-Series track requires this to happen on its end-wrap tires as well. I especially like the idea of keeping all 8 tires driven in the event of any problems in the field. Currently, on track-tuners, if you have to remove a track in the field, you aren't going anywhere with them installed. I cannot even make my garage transition if track tuners are installed (running on tires). At the very least it could make for some frustrating removal of tuners/tires (in bad conditions) if you had to get your axle driving again. We live in a world of what-ifs. There have been some track tuners breaking up here, I'm fairly certain they've been replaced. I understand there have been some improvements made there.

[mightymaxIV]

Dan, I just enjoy playing around and "projecting" (I know some of you can relate). Alaskan conditions are different, and like you said, different tracks can work in different areas. Track-talk has been a little slow latel, so we'll light a fire. Maybe I'll help prospective buyers line up all the dots. What's needed, what's not. Price and performance comparisons are very useful things. I have some recent experience I'd like to add.

Full disclosure. I actually thought the pro-series was going to be an acceptable solution for my long axle machine. I had been running an escargo all-steel track and simply wanted to experiment with the diesel and "extra power/efficiency) by disconnecting the center axles. I had already done this on my gas machine, and it seemed like it would be great to run a kutboa-diesel with this set-up as well. I was watching engine temps under constant load....knowing that my tires were "slipping". Everything was good, but I could only wonder how much better it could be. The kubota is amazing in power and efficiency. This particular machine was built with strength in mind. All long axles and long bearing cages every axle for heavy-duty track use. I had not been using track tuners (track tuners were not an option on this machine over the bolt-on mudd-ox hub....a wider tuner is required to clear the nut....and the hub is already 5" farther out to begin with).
I saw the pro-series track as an easy solution vs. swapping to standard-length center axles (buying new parts and labor + removing perfectly good parts). I posed a question...and Tim was willing to investigate...the possibility of an off-set rim + track tuner to match the tire centerline of the other axles. This was another option. Ultimately, I decided not to do this either. I'd have to buy more tuners, special rims...etc. Why not just throw on an open crosser track...that is reported to be very durable and bouyant (another excuse to try yet another set of tracks )...that would keep all tire speeds constant with the belting. For summer/fall conditions a 14.5" track like this would work...and I was curious....amazing reports. Seemed like a fun experiment. Adair was very helpful in getting a clearance track set...actually ended up being new parts headed my way. I had heard rave reviews from all angles on the internet. I won't repeat all the adjectives that have and continue to be used.

The bummer part is that in my conditions (Alaska), I had serious problems keeping the tracks on. There was also a huge difference in turning effort under certain conditions. I really don't care about much other than the tracks staying on. My set was build with a closer 4.5" pitch instead of the normal (I think) 5" pitch as well for better tire coverage and track-retainment.
I would like to figure out myself what the solution is for that design. On certain machines/loads/conditions...I think it can be problematic. For you guys down there, it seems to be working great in the mud and swamp and terrain parks. My conditions are different. So we'll have some fun and get some good video...hopefully not the same ole same ole. If you put out a design, it's only natural for others to give you feedback.

On another note, I will be swapping out my machine to centaur-style square-profile turf tires and running a twin-track Escargo on the mudd-ox 81" wheelbase (hopefully I got that spec right). I am particularly interested in the redundancy of twin-tracks that would be even more difficult to throw (if that's even possible). Also, it doesn't require track tuners (which I can't run anyway)...and keeps all (8) axles driven. I'll index the tires similar to argo and "pro-series" installation recommendations (every track should do that to keep the load on the proper side of the chains...in the forward direction...at least if #2 is the driver). The open-crosser design allows for negligible slip if needed as the tire breaks contact with individual crossers, unlike a solid rubber end-wrap tire. A Pro-Series track requires this to happen on its end-wrap tires as well. I especially like the idea of keeping all 8 tires driven in the event of any problems in the field. Currently, on track-tuners, if you have to remove a track in the field, you aren't going anywhere with them installed. I cannot even make my garage transition if track tuners are installed (running on tires). At the very least it could make for some frustrating removal of tuners/tires (in bad conditions) if you had to get your axle driving again. We live in a world of what-ifs. There have been some track tuners breaking up here, I'm fairly certain they've been replaced. I understand there have been some improvements made there.

There have been a lot of Changes to Adair tracks and some of the not for the better. I am on my third set of Adair tracks now, pictures tell me that the grousers almost touched the rims on all three sets. I personally liked the longer grouser, they gave better traction in the mud and they were extremely hard to walk out off. I haven't walked out of a set yet (although I did come close one time). I think Tim shortened the grouser because people were complaining of the possibility of side wall damage. I never experienced any side wall damage and liked the longer grouser. Any way couple of pictures show my older designs with longer grouser. Huummmmm? Couldn't get a picture to upload, I'll try again.

Oh well you can check out the pictures I already have posted of my Argo and MaxIV.

Ya, no doubt about it, my grousers when a lot further down the side wall.

[Buzz]

thanks for the info Dan. The guide height is definitely a factor along with radius shape, tire used, and the ability of the guide to move.

Like everything, I haven't quite decided which tire/wheel combo to use on the twin-tracks. I personally need about 1" less height than my current 25x12x9 189's, for a safety margin. It currently fits, but they''ll start hitting each other. The two tracks will have crossers moving in opposite directions (one up, one down) as they cross each other....axles 2 and 3. Staying 12" wide on a tire would be preferable, and 24x12x12's are easy to find, but the loss of floatation and heavier rim cause some hesitation. A better option might be to just go with argo frontier 189's on max rims. I could more easily use those tires other times too. Add an extra inch of belting width to either side, it's a wash. I am curious to hear any opinions on "actual height" of the frontier tire, and also the overall weight/bouyancy mounted on a rim compared to the 25x12x9 189.

[mightymaxIV]

Finally! First picture picture is my third set of tracks mounted on my MaxIV. My Max has the 22" Argo swimmer tires mounted and the 16.5 inch Adair tracks. The second picture is my Argo 650 HD with the 25" Rawhide III's. I think you can see by the photos that the grousers on the old style tracks come down further, I think Tim made these changes to accommodate his customer base however as I have already stated the longer grouser suits my needs very well and gives me that much more traction in mud holes with the grousers grabbing the sides in the long mud lanes and giving extra traction in the mud lanes I have experienced at seven different ATV parks.

[Noel Woods]

I don't want to tick anyone off by saying this, but the Escargo tracks appear to me to be like a "home made" solution to the unique Alaska conditions. I applaud anyone who has come up with a design for an amphib however.
There does appear to be some self-promotion going on here and at the expense of others.
I have been running Adair tracks on three of my machines for years, I've put these machines through many testing conditions, and found the performance in each as excellent. I've never yet thrown a track under any condition, nor have I witnessed an Adair track being thrown on other machines.
I don't want to disrupt any attempts to advertise a product, but I would sure like to see footage of an Adair track being thrown off a heavy duty, long axle Mudd Ox, or any other amphib for that matter. If the design has any flaws that can be demonstrated, I'm sure that the Adair guys will make a revision, having said that, I have tried my best to throw the track intentionally by using underinflated tires, high speed 360 degree turns, etc., and the track has always stayed on and performed like few other products do.