Tracks, Boggies, suspension...heaven forbid?

[Old Tucker]

Wide escargot track with a wide winter kit. Increased width, paddle bite = increased performance in keeping your machine up and moving in very deep snow.

I wish I had a mid engine unit to play with. I think the weight is more evenly distributed. Where the argo all the weight is on the front making it nose heavy. Thats how they steer it by rotating it on the front four wheels. and the back swings from side to side. If you take the front tires off the argo it falls flat on its nose. Yes increasing the width of track and bigger paddles will give you more flotation and traction.. But still you are trying to push the nose through the snow. I think a good snow track for the argo should be at least one foot longer on the front and curved up more so it will pull its self up more. to make up for the heave front end. It would also work better on all the other models. Thats my take on it.
As for the escargo, Adair. and channel track they are all excellent tracks. and serve their purpose. but are limited by design.
I hope I am not the only one that looks at it this way

[Buzz]

I know my ox's were definitely nose heavy if someone was actually IN them driving I did have non-XL machines though. They were heavier and the noses (even with tracks) would sink in a fair bit more than argos I've owned. Which, makes me think a little...
You know, I'm curious- how much do you think a tank-shaped track (in the front) is going to help keep the machine float or stay up on the snow. I've always thought that a longer, sloped shape in the front would help if we were talking about skis, for instance, that just get pushed. Like a snowmachine, this shape would be necessary. But, since the front of our tracks actually rotate, it seems like they are able to stay on top (or get back on top) of the snow (even if you dive nose-down into a ditch for example)... as long as you have adequate track "width." Even a track with a sloped front is only really supporting the weight of the machine with the portion of the track that is flat on the ground. You start pushing snow (losing forward momentum and digging a hole) when you attempt maneuvers such as steep climbing in deep snow that require more floatation than your track has.
I do think a sloped-track would help transition more smoothly onto and over hard obstacles though.
But for deep snow and especially climbing, you've got to have some serious width if you want better performance climbing in deep snow. It's more that just the shape of the front-of-the-track. Or you have to take multiple runs at it. That's our achilles heel because we don't have the HP to spin 400-500 total inches of track with significant speed.
All of the open-grouser style tracks (adair, escargo, chanel etc) are going to perform well in the snow as long as they have enough width. A lot of people think they need a solid track like an argo rubber track for the biggest footprint. A lot of us up here are not fans (to say the least) with the rubber track for a number of reasons. I think that a open-grouser is going to help any new track design.

[rcn11thacr]

The way I see it (working outside of the box) is you have two options;
1.) Is to build this fancy style suspension tracked system that’s already been built for the max. The system has already been used and discarded due to poor performance for multiple reasone as mentioned above, and it also has the other drawbacks such as unslung weight which slowed down the (then) underpowered max.
2.) Or, you bring the best of the two ideas together, therefore keeping the flotation, using simple store bought tracks that work, and you spend your time, money, and effort building a body to “meet” the system that already works by doing this
;

Going this route allows you to put the body where it will meet the tracks, thereby providing a pointed front end to facilitate the front end angle up so it already starts the climb over the object, then the tracks take over. You can mate the factory hdpe upper body to meet the homebuilt lower body your building with mounting tabs or whatever is required to mate the two together, therefore saving time on the build. Once again this gives you the choice of todays tracks that are on the market, keeps the flotation by using the existing wheels, and you can ride with out tracks if you dont have them yet, and its faily simple to build. Example: using the frame of a max iv; build the lower tub from aluminum or stainless steel to match the frame width of the max (its a bolt in system, ie.. drop the complete frame in just as if you used a max tub) then just add the slanted front bow to the body tub design your building. Best way i can come up with of giving you the advantage your wanting with the least amount of work to get you there.

Ps... This would be the prime time to add extra clearance to get those larger tires you have always wanted. As an added bonus...no more dealing with body sag. For those of you that dont want an aluminum body due to climbing over rocks, just bolt on a teflon sheet or some sort of hdpe along the slope and follow it all the way underneath to the back.

[john swenson]

hey, clever idea. just shows how many creative options there are. lot's of design ideas,some work good ..some not. if a guy had a nice shop with lots of the right tools and the money, how fun it would be to just keep experimenting. just for better ability to get thru snow or mud without always riding on the tracks, how would it work with a track maybe 6'' wide running outside the wheels on rims that are maybe 20'' diameter. front rim/cog would drive the track. so basically the tracks wouldn't function untill tires sank some. sort of like the jz wheels. would add width of course, but still be good for most places. johnboy va.

[juggernaut]

I wonder how atv tracks would work on a fully hydraulic machine such as a Hydrotraxx as it is really not a true skid/steer ?

[rcn11thacr]

hey, clever idea. just shows how many creative options there are. lot's of design ideas,some work good ..some not. if a guy had a nice shop with lots of the right tools and the money, how fun it would be to just keep experimenting. just for better ability to get thru snow or mud without always riding on the tracks, how would it work with a track maybe 6'' wide running outside the wheels on rims that are maybe 20'' diameter. front rim/cog would drive the track. so basically the tracks wouldn't function untill tires sank some. sort of like the jz wheels. would add width of course, but still be good for most places. johnboy va.

My first thought? A smaller width track would allow a tree or rock to "fall" In between the wheels (just like a non tracked aatv), this would take away from the suspension or cushioning effect of tracks. For me that's a big deal. A) I have several back and neck issues complements of Uncle Sam, so I rely on the tracks because they do ride much better; B) the terrain I live in has so many downed trees to climb over that there r places I just couldn't go if I didn't have the tracks to help me climb over obstacles. Yes I understand u said a 6 inch track design, but I feel that small a track would be insignificant compared to a normal width track and the benefits that it gives. Would it help like u mentioned? Got me. Go try it out and let us know how it turns out

[john swenson]

rcn 11, did you understand i meant the regular tires and wheels would still be in place, the 6'' tracks would would run a smaller circle on rims next to the outside of the tires. almost like having dual wheels, but instead of 3 more tires it would be a track. i'm like alot of guy's who see it in my head, but don't know if it will work till i make it. i have sure built plenty of things i thought would work, but didn't. so it's nice to have friends point out stuff. then i go huh, now i see why it won't function. my idea was more for a track that would only go into play when the machine sinks in mud or snow. but i see what your saying about rocks or limbs jamming in the system. johnboy va.

[rcn11thacr]

rcn 11, did you understand i meant the regular tires and wheels would still be in place, the 6'' tracks would would run a smaller circle on rims next to the outside of the tires. almost like having dual wheels, but instead of 3 more tires it would be a track. i'm like alot of guy's who see it in my head, but don't know if it will work till i make it. i have sure built plenty of things i thought would work, but didn't. so it's nice to have friends point out stuff. then i go huh, now i see why it won't function. my idea was more for a track that would only go into play when the machine sinks in mud or snow. but i see what your saying about rocks or limbs jamming in the system. johnboy va.

I did. I just wasn't confident in your idea of this "system" of wheel and track..."in my terrain". It may be the cats meow in snow or mud and that's why I suggested u give it a try. But for here in my terrain i think it would be a liability. It also would lose the cushioning effect tracks give when they are "over the wheel tracks". I totally get having other viewpoints, although I'll admit that I wish sometimes that they had offered their opinions before I'd done things . 20/20 Vision in hindsight is, well...I think u get the idea. I've gone to great lengths to do futile things in the past when I could have done less effort and had much more success. Live and learn, such is life.

[john swenson]

it's so much fun thinking outside the box. plus i love the idea of coming up with some kind of track system that's affordable and easily installed. my idea would mainly be for use here and there when snow falls or your going mudding. will i fabricate it and test it ? maybe if i get the extra cash and do some more research and thinking. also any more comments of things i'm missing as to the drawbacks of the design or why it would'nt work. know doubt you can't beat a good set of adairs !! these would'nt take their place, just add alittle extra help. johnboy va.

[rcn11thacr]

I agree. When things settle down at my new place i have every intention to build one of the lower tubs that i mentioned in my first post. I really like the idea and unless someone points out an obvious error that i have yet to see (which is why i mentioned it here) then i plan to do it. It goes without saying that others are free to give their viewpoints regarding the post i made earlier with the Russian BMP pictured in it. I like the idea. I like the idea even more with a rear "drop down tailgate" built into the design. If the max IV had been built with a tailgate in the rear, it would be so much easier to work on. Yes i know it would weaken the sides of the max by not being fully connected...but that can be overcome. Add a good weatherstrip for a seal to keep out water, a solid piano type hinge and some good clamps to hold the tailgate from the inside.