As some of you may know I've been running my argos without tracks. I was talking to someone the other day who was curious about argos ask "so from what I gather, an argo with tracks is good in mud but sucks in water, and an argo with tires is bad in mud but good in water?". I told him that an Argo with tires in good shape is still better than a quad with good mud tires. But I got wondering about that.
I think maybe the areas I use my machine are just unique and that's how I get by without tracks. I drive over muskeg to get to my hunting areas, and that's basically just a thin layer of vegetation over an infinite depth of watery peat/mud. Sometimes if you're close to a lake you can get out of the machine, jump up and down, and the ground all around you bounces and produces waves, floating muskeg. I can get through it 95% of the time as long as there's a layer of mossy/grassy plantlife growing on top, but drive into the black stuff and I'm done, have to winch through. But even the big souped up quads with 30" mud tires can't get 30 feet in this stuff. They just chew through the mat of mossy grass and sink down to the skid plates. I've ran into those guys in these trails and they just spend all day to get a mile down these trails tearing them all to oblivion. Where I can just cruise over the top of it picking my way around the holes and covering that same ground in 10 minutes with the tires barely chewing through the first layer.
What I have learned is that there is a pretty decent learning curve to get the machines through regular muddy rutted up quad trails without the advantage of tracks. You have to keep them from getting high centered. Take funny diagonal lines across holes to stay out of ruts. But most of the time the quads are hammering it right into the middle of the big holes to try and get through. Well I'm just out hunting so I just drive around those holes lol, so I end up being able to get further easier than the quad guys because I don't have anything to prove going into the middle of the deep holes when there's a perfectly clean line off to one side of it.
So in thinking of this stuff I went back to youtube and looked up old Martin O videos on youtube because I remember his whole crew never used tracks. Holy crap! I've never seen so many argos get stuck so often lol. Those guys just get stuck in every single hole one after the other, drive 10 feet and get stuck in the next hole. Then a guy in a side by side comes along and just blasts right through them all! Obviously there's something going on here that I don't see out here in Alberta because the side by sides and quads seem to have an easier time through some of them anyway.
So that got me to thinking, if a regular quad can get through that stuff easier than an argo, why the freak am I riding around in a $30,000 specialized "go anywhere" machine that can't get where a $5000 quad can go? Am I missing out on life by not using tracks? LOL!
What about anyone else going trackless, do you guys ever go out with the quad guys? What do you think, does a quad get around better than an argo with the stock tires?
IMG_6782.jpg
I think maybe the areas I use my machine are just unique and that's how I get by without tracks. I drive over muskeg to get to my hunting areas, and that's basically just a thin layer of vegetation over an infinite depth of watery peat/mud. Sometimes if you're close to a lake you can get out of the machine, jump up and down, and the ground all around you bounces and produces waves, floating muskeg. I can get through it 95% of the time as long as there's a layer of mossy/grassy plantlife growing on top, but drive into the black stuff and I'm done, have to winch through. But even the big souped up quads with 30" mud tires can't get 30 feet in this stuff. They just chew through the mat of mossy grass and sink down to the skid plates. I've ran into those guys in these trails and they just spend all day to get a mile down these trails tearing them all to oblivion. Where I can just cruise over the top of it picking my way around the holes and covering that same ground in 10 minutes with the tires barely chewing through the first layer.
What I have learned is that there is a pretty decent learning curve to get the machines through regular muddy rutted up quad trails without the advantage of tracks. You have to keep them from getting high centered. Take funny diagonal lines across holes to stay out of ruts. But most of the time the quads are hammering it right into the middle of the big holes to try and get through. Well I'm just out hunting so I just drive around those holes lol, so I end up being able to get further easier than the quad guys because I don't have anything to prove going into the middle of the deep holes when there's a perfectly clean line off to one side of it.
So in thinking of this stuff I went back to youtube and looked up old Martin O videos on youtube because I remember his whole crew never used tracks. Holy crap! I've never seen so many argos get stuck so often lol. Those guys just get stuck in every single hole one after the other, drive 10 feet and get stuck in the next hole. Then a guy in a side by side comes along and just blasts right through them all! Obviously there's something going on here that I don't see out here in Alberta because the side by sides and quads seem to have an easier time through some of them anyway.
So that got me to thinking, if a regular quad can get through that stuff easier than an argo, why the freak am I riding around in a $30,000 specialized "go anywhere" machine that can't get where a $5000 quad can go? Am I missing out on life by not using tracks? LOL!

IMG_6782.jpg
Comment