x cat 8x8

[john swenson]

that video of this german x cat 8x8 machine is pretty cool design. check it out if you have'nt seen it. johnboy va.

[Delduck]

John where do I go to see a pic of the machine

[Andyman]

Linky ?

[john swenson]

just punch in '' x cat 8x8 '' and some videos will come up. apparently this was built from scratch from what i can gather. j.b.

[tbone9]

Pretty cool. It really articulates well.

[Delduck]

Neat video for rock crawling. I’m looking for ground clearance and torque to push threw swamps.

[allwheeldrive]

Yea I was pretty interested in this when I first saw it. Adair tracks are not going to climb the rock faces this thing can. Upon more research it appears the inventor plans to make these if anyone buys. Don't know price but it should be a lot guessing 40-60,000
Seeing as it is pretty much a much more optimized and lightened version of an Alstor 8x8 which ranges in the 100,000 to 120,000 price range!

Delduck, I'd think this machine would fair very well in the application you describe. This machine has heaps of ground clearance with the portal chain drives. Likely 2-3x more than a 6x6. I'd think torque would be a given. I've never seen an AATV, ATV, or really any off road machine fail in mud or swamps due to lack of torque it ends up being due to lack of traction and flotation.

[John8x8hdi]

pretty cool machine. It definitely articulates really well, would be good for rock climbing with the right tires.

[john swenson]

i really like the way the pair of wheels pivot..but still drive together. it was fun to see a fairly good shot of how that drive setup is done. obviously the relationship of the drive sprockets down to each wheel does'nt change no matter how much the pivoting assembly moves. i would also think it does have some kind of stop limit so it could not not rotate too far .. j.b.

[Delduck]

Very true about lack of traction. In the flotation dept I move forward until the reeds pile up in front of me then I get nowhere, but as you said back to no traction to push forward. I’m trying to build a machine now that has the rubber tracks like my max but also has 3 ft of ground clearance, that’s why I’m interested in some different designs on the drive end. Like the drive chains on that machine.

[john swenson]

it seems that those pivot assemblies could be extended in length so that there could be 3' distance from the pivot point and main frame down to the ground. then if the axles extended the wheels out far enough there would be clearance for tracks. if you don't need the pivot design..just drop a single extension down for each wheel and add tracks. on my subframe design on my max 2 ..i could easily drop all 6 axles 3 feet down below the main frame. i would just extend the plates the bearings are on. i would still have the chains connecting between the axles though. or i could leave the axles and sprockets where they are..cut off the extra length of those axles and drop chains down vertical to new axles on those longer plates. so basically my axles like they are now become jackshafts. hope that's not too confusing. just throwing out some ideas for you.....johnboy va.

[Delduck]

I’m all ears �� I understand dropping the drive chains straight down but if you extended the axles like you were talking wouldn’t that create so much drag on the tracks and system that things would break?

[john swenson]

i think that's the advantage of having the chain drives enclosed in the metal '' cases '' like on the x cat. they can be designed kind of streamlined with tapered edges so they will have the least drag going thru mud, etc. i think the axles should be 1 1/2'' diameter for strength against bending. in terms of width of the drive extentions.. 2 bearings spaced maybe 4'' apart would give the needed support to the axles i would think. the only other way to get high ground clearance without drive extenders down to the axles is you have to have big tires like on the ''sherp'' atv......j.b. p.s. those pivoting chain drive structures on the x cat look pretty beefy !

[allwheeldrive]

Very true about lack of traction. In the flotation dept I move forward until the reeds pile up in front of me then I get nowhere, but as you said back to no traction to push forward. I’m trying to build a machine now that has the rubber tracks like my max but also has 3 ft of ground clearance, that’s why I’m interested in some different designs on the drive end. Like the drive chains on that machine.

It's always a balance between ground resistance and forward propulsion. If you never want to get stuck you have to reach the golden ratio. At which point you'll have more propulsion surface vs underbelly to hang up. At which point it should in theory never get stuck. Since in essence you've flipped the drag and now its almost like the vehicle is "stuck" moving. Example would be Rokon with more tire surface than belly, Bushswampwers. More tire surface than belly, or most 6x6 or 8x8 with wide track systems. Ground clearance almost becomes irreverent at this point since even if the belly always dragged it have less effect than the tracks etc. Now in reality this only helps mostly in mud or snow. Anywhere there are offset obstacles more advanced means of propulsion should be considered. If you haven't seen my Quadractor stuck video I'd suggest watching good example of how a vehicle can still get stuck with massive ground clearance.

Another note to point out is every kind of surface has a maximum traction potential. A vehicle with snow chains or aggressive studs can have more traction on ice than pavement. Likewise if the material can handle it more aggressive tread can be the answer. Otherwise its irreverent.

[john swenson]

good points allwheel...maybe thats why that russian sherp goes almost anywhere. a good combination of ground clearance and weight of machine spread on those tires for a small pound ratio footprint. would be fun to see a 6x6 with a belly clearance of maybe 24'' to 30'' achieved by extenders and a set of 25'' tires with adair tracks !! j.b.