Half Tracks and Tuners?

[Rock Doctor]

I know there have been a number of discussions on Tracks, but has this thought come up yet?
One of the biggest problems I have with Tracks is Keeping them on the damn tires. Now, it's easier to keep the tracks on 2 tires than it is 4 tires. So, in theory, it should be easier for me to keep my tracks on if I track the front 2 tires together and the back 2 tires together. But my understanding, (From reading some other posts), is that tracking up this way can contribute to INCREASED Chain Windeup issues...... Tire pressures and circumferance is even more important.
So, If I was to track up this way, but run a Track Tuner on the 2nd and 4th axle, would I get enough grip between my tires and the tracks to keep from spinning out inside the tracks?
I know I don't have any problems spinning inside the tracks if I run one track around all tires and have Tuners on the 2nd and 3rd axles.
Would this not eliminate ALL chain windeup issues?
One concern is that there is very little of anything for the tires to get a bite on inside Supertracks. Another is that there is not enough room between the tires to run a set of Adairs in this configuration........... Unless I were to put maybe a set of 20" Tires on the machine, and then Adair Tracks (This would be easy to do with a set of "Plate Linked" Adair Tracks............. I knew I should have bought a set of those to try)

Any Thoughts Y'all
I will probably try it anyway, just to see what happens

RD

[mudbug3]

Tim does'nt have any chain wind up issues on the Argo 8x8's he sells that run the Adair tracks. You should'nt need to use the ' track tunners ' even if you track all four tires on either side. The Argo Avenger 8x8 HDI that Tim brought to river run atv park to ride with us never had any chain wind up issues running the Adair tracks on the four tires on either side.

[Rock Doctor]

Chain windup is not the issue I'm trying to solve, it's keeping the wide tracks mounted in really rutted up, twisty terrain. I don't have any issues with keeping any of the narrow tracks mounted, it's more the wide super tracks that are the issue.

RD

[mudbug3]

Kyle

I see your point now. My mistake

[Rock Doctor]

Kyle

I see your point now. My mistake

I re-read my post, and can see how it was misleading.
Doesn't seem to matter though, lol, maybe its just a dumb idea and nobody wants to come out and just say "Hey, it's a dumb idea, move along now"

I've tracked the front 3 tires together before, but never tried splitting the tracks into 2 &2. I see the new Titan is offered in this configuration.

RD

[Buzz]

I've always been worried about no bearing supports on the middle axles. I've tried removing my rear chains, and the front 3 tires spin hopelessly when slick and the machine is trying to push itself forward with any significant load. (rubber tracks) Super disappointing. It was good news to hear that you had no slippage with only the front/rear tires driving your adairs. It makes sense with end tires increased contact patch I guess. I would "guess" the tires would slip inside the 2 smaller tracks with only one driving as the other one is now a dis-engaged end-tire, but maybe not as much as a full-length-wrapped track with one of the end tires removed. An efffective wider track (with extensions or not) is one that does not suffer and flexing or "levering" of the tire-guide area, either from the crosser itself or the track outboard of the guide/crosser area. Nobody around here wants to hear "escargo" but.......

[Moosetalker]

Seen a few commercial users that track up the front 2 axles only and run with that configuration with the old plastic type tracks prob just a cost saving procces though

[Rock Doctor]

I've always been worried about no bearing supports on the middle axles. I would "guess" the tires would slip inside the 2 smaller tracks with only one driving as the other one is now a dis-engaged end-tire, but maybe not as much as a full-length-wrapped track with one of the end tires removed. An efffective wider track (with extensions or not) is one that does not suffer and flexing or "levering" of the tire-guide area, either from the crosser itself or the track outboard of the guide/crosser area. Nobody around here wants to hear "escargo" but.......

I suspect you might be right, I'm trying to think of a way to improve traction for the tires (Inside the tracks). As for th Escargo's, I have a line on a set right now, brand new, never been used. They are owned by a Gas Company that no longer runs Conquests. I was told that once they are removed from the companies inventory, that I can have them, but there is no way for me to determine how long it will take for that to happen.

Seen a few commercial users that track up the front 2 axles only and run with that configuration with the old plastic type tracks prob just a cost saving procces though

There is a member here that does that too. I just doen't understand why a setup like that does not just drag the rear 2 tires around? I can see where/how it would be helpfull at times, but it's not what I'm looking for right now. Moose, have you discussed this setup with any of those users?

RD

[sparkola]

Are you running old runamuks to drive the tracks? I bet the newer 22" Carlisles with the bigger lugs would give a better bite into the track and reduce the slipping. As for the walking out of the tracks, would you say that it happens because maybe it's not just the guide itself that bends out enough that allows the tires to walk out but because each track segment actually becomes concave (when looking from the outside top surface of the track) due to the inherent weakness(read as flexabilty) of the plastic itself? Perhaps a lightweight yet strong reinforcement to each flat(contact) surface of each track segment like carbon fiber rods could be utilized?