New Type of Tracks - Chanel Tracks

[Buzz]

So Buzz if the Channel tracks are no long your preferred track for Alaska anymore what is? We have similar terrain in Alberta for the most part and I'm curious. I'm still rocking the Escargo's and Rubber tracks for winter.

I could use your expertise trying to solve some axle issues I'm having. I was breaking mid axles for a while even with track tuners. I was trying to control tub slap like mentioned especially with the Escargo's so I was trying to run them more snug then loose.
I seem not to be breaking axles crossing big logs but rather over 3-4" logs at trail speeds of 5-10kph. It's always when you least expect it and some of the logs are small enough to be covered in grass and hard to see.
I ended up getting tired of this so I went with all forged axles on all 8 wheels, well last trip out with the rubber tracks in a clean cut block through a small depression in the ground I snapped a front axle even with the bearing extension? I was blown away by this...
Most of the axles are shearing off clean at the bearing, one weld seemed to fail at the flange and a couple between the sprockets. Any suggestions?

Sparx, I think the rubber tracks by far cause the most wear and tear on our machines. There is a reason ARGO has continued to strengthen the drivetrain to survive using a flat snowmachine belt surface that is difficult to turn and tgaf uses guides tgaf are hard on tire sidewalls. Lowering tire psi will gelp with shock-load type axke failures but causes other track tension related problems with the factory rubber track. One of many readons I dont like it.
I still build and use the steel bar channel track frequently but only use it on machines with 10/11” tires or narrower. I also add extra grousers and lengthen a little to limit stress. Steel can fatigue and develop cracks if abused with too much tension. More commonly you’ll see bent grousers from abusive conditions but occasionally some develop cracks. Other times they hold up great for a long time, just depends on the end user. But the 12” wide tires and heavier machines seeem to be more prone to bending steel grousers.
So for these machines I insist on solid through bolted UHMW grousers (I make them interchangeable with the steel grousers for previously built tracks too) so that these machines that put the most stress on the tracks (heavier, more distance between track belts/leverage on grousers, lower gearing, higher hp, tracks can ge run tight) do not and cannot break the track grousers (I still have never seen it happen). So for Avengers, Auroras, Centaurs, ect, An Elevated belt through bolted UHMW grouser makes for a maintenance free track that works everywhere and gives all the benefits of my favorite track style for Alaska. Both the steel channel and UHMW through-bolted do this, but a UHMW elevated belt track stands up to abuse. My material cost is more for the UHMW but it is what it is I guess.
As for axle damage with rubber tracks (or any tracks for that matter), my experience has been that lower/softer psi in tires does a lot to absorb unexpected shock loads. So does slowing down. Another reason I prefer the elevated belt track- You’ll automatically reduce your crawling speed by 25% and your track does not need to be tight (there are no guide tips to manipulate), so running very low psi is just fine, and with some of the newer rims, preferable. In fact it’s basically a run flat set-up.
Onlyonce- I happy to share info good and bad

[ARGOJIM]

Sparx, I think the rubber tracks by far cause the most wear and tear on our machines. There is a reason ARGO has continued to strengthen the drivetrain to survive using a flat snowmachine belt surface that is difficult to turn and tgaf uses guides tgaf are hard on tire sidewalls. Lowering tire psi will gelp with shock-load type axke failures but causes other track tension related problems with the factory rubber track. One of many readons I dont like it.
I still build and use the steel bar channel track frequently but only use it on machines with 10/11” tires or narrower. I also add extra grousers and lengthen a little to limit stress. Steel can fatigue and develop cracks if abused with too much tension. More commonly you’ll see bent grousers from abusive conditions but occasionally some develop cracks. Other times they hold up great for a long time, just depends on the end user. But the 12” wide tires and heavier machines seeem to be more prone to bending steel grousers.
So for these machines I insist on solid through bolted UHMW grousers (I make them interchangeable with the steel grousers for previously built tracks too) so that these machines that put the most stress on the tracks (heavier, more distance between track belts/leverage on grousers, lower gearing, higher hp, tracks can ge run tight) do not and cannot break the track grousers (I still have never seen it happen). So for Avengers, Auroras, Centaurs, ect, An Elevated belt through bolted UHMW grouser makes for a maintenance free track that works everywhere and gives all the benefits of my favorite track style for Alaska. Both the steel channel and UHMW through-bolted do this, but a UHMW elevated belt track stands up to abuse. My material cost is more for the UHMW but it is what it is I guess.
As for axle damage with rubber tracks (or any tracks for that matter), my experience has been that lower/softer psi in tires does a lot to absorb unexpected shock loads. So does slowing down. Another reason I prefer the elevated belt track- You’ll automatically reduce your crawling speed by 25% and your track does not need to be tight (there are no guide tips to manipulate), so running very low psi is just fine, and with some of the newer rims, preferable. In fact it’s basically a run flat set-up.
Onlyonce- I happy to share info good and bad

So Buzz, just for a mental image for others you are talking a track such as channel, escargo, adair, beaver dam etc..
What have you found to be the best belt widths for both deep snow , tundra, and general mud use? Do any widths affect water speed along with grouser designs? Have you attempted, though costly, a chevron design yet?

[thorn]

It's great that this thread keeps updating with new info about these tracks. That being said I will give my two cents about my experience with this track system. The machine I have been using them on is a 2004 Conquest with a GU (granny) transmission. I'm using 22x11x8 Carlisle Stryker tires with tracker tuners on the middle four hubs. I got my Chanel tracks from Marcel approx 5-6 years ago now and I use them exclusively for snow. And when I say snow, I'm talking high elevation (8000-10000 feet) deep (several feet) snow. I did use the tracks for a small time as they came to me and that is in a 20" wide version. They did pretty good, but I noticed that since they have rather aggressive grousers they can dig down fairly fast, especially in loose snow so I made some modifications to them. I first replaced the outside 4" belt with a 6" belt making them 22" wide and then I bolted on approx 4" wide x 2" high angle aluminum paddles on both the inside and outside belt next to every other grouser. That is a nice design benefit to the elevated belts is you can put paddles on the inside belt without hitting the tub of the machine. I used flex-co 550 belt lacing for the track hinge. I changed the stock front axles/bearings out for the heavy duty version to help take any additional stress and weight they take. I run the tracks fairly tight with 2-3" sag under the middle tires and with psi in the tires ranging from 6-7 psi. I was experiencing some tire slippage and to stop that I drilled and bolted two small bolts on each grouser to give the front/rear tires more traction and that solved any slippage issues. This set up runs very smooth and I get very good gas mileage considering the weight of this set up. I have taken the whole family with a lot of gear several miles to backcountry locations multiple times and I have had ZERO issues and have been very impressed with it's capabilities. Adding the wider belt helps a lot with floatation. I have around 200 hours on the machine with this set up and I am still on the original chains and bearings.

I just purchased a brand new (2018) Frontier 8x8 Scout/LE with a 26.5 HP EFI Kohler and I am going to transition this track system over to this machine this Fall. I will have to lengthen them some because of the wheelbase difference and I have to get another set of tires/rims (10" stock tires are too skinny). I am trying to decide on that combo currently.

[Buzz]

argojim- I am referring to elevated belt style tracks that have the top of the grouser guide through-bolted to the elevated belt. Escargo, Channel, UHMW grouser elevated belt. When the belt is on top, the top of the guides are fixed-position and unable to manipulate. Instead, the ground-contact portion of each grouser moves away from its neighboring grouser as it goes around corner tires, even though the guide tips (through-bolted to the elevated belt)never change position. In this way the track doesnt require increased tension for the guides to continue working (especially important in the event of flat/leaky tires). This also makes the contact patch as narrow as possible and raises the belt edge off the ground when traction and easy-turning is wanted but massive floatation isn’t needed yet. When you do sink into soft terrain (mud/snow/swamp) then you in fact get the massive floatation of wide belts, full tire width cleanout and grouser paddle surface for propulsion. Uneven ground isn’t able to manipulate the narrow contact patch track (and therefore guides) near as easily. Sticks also cannot fall in between the guides (because the belt is on top) like they can on tracks with tire guide tips(argo rubber, adair, argo supertracks). In fact the elevated belt protects tire sidewalls because the guides cannot be leveraged in, and sticks cannot be trapped between guides as the track drives along. In that scenario a stick becomes a lever and the guide becomes a fulcrum to slash a tire. This cannot happen with an elevated belt track, and you will never break any of the tire guides.
An elevated belt track with a contact patch of 10, 11, or 12” wide with a belt edge lifted off the ground will always skid turn easiest, even if the overall width is 22 or even 30” wide. In fact you are able to skid turn right through, up and over certain obstacles that would otherwise wheel-chalk tracks that have edges on the ground.
If you use tracks strictly in mud or snow (any style) the track (and tires) suffers far less wear. Any track will help to get you through the soft stuff (some better than others), but it’s all the other conditions you have to transition through that are typically hard on machines and tires. Elevated belt tracks take care of this problem as well.
In my opinion there is a good, better, best approach to how some have attempted to build this style track. I no longer mix steel and UHMW “hybrids”. I also don’t agree with the approach of oversizing the paddle shape to the extent that the contact patch is too wide, square, or requires oversized wheel spacers. Instead make the contact patch as small as possible and add wide belts instead. I prefer 19” to 21” overall width for a main track with an additional belt of 5 or 6” for extreme snow depths. I prefer to have the tire sidewall belt edge sit back from the guide itself, and it should be cut/beveled so that it doesn’t touch the tire. I have seen metal hinges wear out, and hinge pin bolts break or nuts come off. There is also a risk of a hinge pin rubbing a tire or machine skid plate if not designed correctly. I now strictly use a big meaty overlap hinge with through bolts that face the same direction as the bolts that affix the grousers to the track. The track ends are still brought together in one spot for easy installation, and the through bolts are unable to cause any rubbing, they cannot work loose, and the overlap method never wears out or breaks.

[Buzz]

argojim,almost forgot, the wider the track tge better it works in mud and snow. I have tried individual chevron paddles but was not impressed. The best paddles so far have been about 2” tall x 5-6” long positioned at a 45 degree angle to the grousers (positioned on the elevated belts so that tge grouser and added rubber paddles create one big chevron). if that makes sense. Bigger and taller paddles didn’t seem to help either. So far every 4th or 5th grouser works best. Some paddles I thought for sure wiukd help, didnt make much difference, so you gotta test, it’s a pain in the butt. But really for truly fast (relative) water speed, thats what outboards or tow-skiffsare for.

[onlyonce]

Great explanation of whats going on.

[ARGOJIM]

Thanks Buzz

[john swenson]

i guess there is no way to know if it takes more power to run in snow or mud ( same tracked machine ) , cause it could be powder or wet snow or sticky mud or pudding mud. any comments ? i was riding the max 2 highboy with my tracks in our first snow today ( 5'' ) semi wet and was trying to tell if it took more power than gooey mud. i guess there are to many factors to figure that out . j.b.

[Buzz]

johnboy, snow and mud definitely takes more power to run in, if your tires or track are able to hook up. The track allows the machine to take a bigger “bite” out of the terrain, rather than just a little bit of each tire. Depending on the width and size of your track grouser (surface area), the track is able to hook up better and provide a big increase in the most challenging mud and snow. The track belting can only be turned so fast against this load with our little engines, but slow is often just as effective or sometimes better than a fast track speed. An elevated belt track will drive the belting 25% slower than the outside of the corner tire treads (which requires less power than an argo rubber track/adair track/argo supertrack). The reduced track speed happens because the track grousers “centipede” around the corner tires, meanwhile the track moves under the machine at a reduced speed, allowing the much larger vertical track grouser surface area to hook up and provide much better propulsion when in nasty “get stuck” type stuff. With an elevated belt track you’re able to have your cake and eat it too: for instance, keep the ground clearance and bouyancy of 25” tires, while enjoying a track that drives as easily as having dropped to 19” diameter tires...even though you didn’t. If your machine doesn’t have low gears, an elevated belt track lets you perform as if you did. If you do have low gears, then your machine performs like it has ultra low gears. More accurately, it’s like your existing machine has dropped to a 25% smaller tire size (power-wise). Your machine can still only provide its designed torque to its axles, but making tge elevated belt track drive requires less of this torque than a non-elevated belt track. This means better belt life, reduced engine temps and improved fuel economy.
Just remember to run track tuners so that tge middle tires do not have to overdrive the slower moving track that they are riding on top of (all axles are chained together so disconnecting the center tires outside the machine accomplishes this). This allows axles to drive and the frame inside the machine to share the load as designed, but it relieves load outside the machine tgat the middle tires encounter when inside a track.

[onlyonce]

Buzz, what do you feel is the ideal grouser spacing with the elevated style metal track like the Escargo vs the UHMW. Did you find any real benefits of using steel inserts in the bottom edges of the UHMW grousers for traction when you tried them? Do you think the shaping of the Escargo in terms of the heavily rounded corners is the best compromise of traction vs turning. I am sure they put a lot of trial and error into coming up with what works. Thanks

[Buzz]

onlyonce- Right now I still feel that the original escargo grouser from Timmins is the best compromise of big surface area , small contact patch, and easy turning. Uneven ground has very little effect on it. The UHMW grousers I use are similar to that but tweaked just a little for improved clearance and to work with a factory 2.5” spacer even with 12” wide tires. Metal inserts or bolt on traction enhancers work great, so long as you keep the UHMW solid (without slots) and do not create any thin walled or flexible areas. Thats the best thing about UHMW, it is very stiff and will spring back from any slight flexing that happens so long as you don’t weaken it with bad design or thin walls. Depending on guide height, 4-5” spacing is perfect balance of track retention, weight, ability of mud to self clean, aggressiveness, and individual load on each grouser. Escargo got it right, I think they should go back to a more simple overlap hinge (one of their dealers suggested the metal hinge a few years back. A properly made UHMW track accomplishes the same thing, is less prone to bending, and is less mass in the water but requires added traction in icy conditions. 2 great ways to get excellent track performance.

[onlyonce]

Thanks, It does seem that most of the people who have tried putting metal inserts on UHMW grousers have cut some kind of slot and I can see how that would weaken things.

[john swenson]

thanks buzz... what i really meant was is riding in snow with tracks take the same amount of power as riding in mud with tracks ? hence , i guess there are too many variables , conditions , etc. to ever really figure that out . j.b.

[Buzz]

johnboy, sorry about that. I see what you mean- I haven’t been on the forum in awhile, so I’ll carry on a little bit more- it’s fun. I agree that the type of snow/mud matters. My experience is thick mud takes more power (body is forced to plow through mud moreso vs. than with snow, and it’s usually harder for the track to churn through thick mud very fast), but they both require significantly more power from the small engines, and the cvt system adjusts for load and gears the machines down. Same with inclines. Your performance moving forward will largely depend on the track’s ability to hook up. With deep snow, have to plow as well, just not as bad as with thick mud. Very quickly the machines are forced to operate in the slow/“gear-down” range that the cvt provides under load. The machines are heavy relative to engine size, so it’s all about traction not speed. That’s what makes wide tracks work so well, even if slow. Slow seems fast when nothing else can make it, and the properly tracked argo makes it through easily. The wider your track and the more vertical surface area your track has, the more propulsion it can provide when the going gets really bad. The body will sink less (and drag less) and the grousers can anchor themselves more effectively to keep you moving as the track turns.
Just imagine taking a shovel and pushing the blade through the mud horizontally vs the blade moving through the mud vertically. That’s my best analogy of big vertical surface area grousers having an advantage in nasty conditions. Thick mud limits your speed more noticeably, and the CVT does its best to gear the machine down (which lowers speed) to handle the increased load (and increased traction) that the track is able to grab. As track width narrows and grouser or lug surface area decreases, it is more prone to spinning w/o providing as much forward movement. The machine rides lower, drags more, and hooks up less. Stand alone tires (no tracks) even moreso. Keep in mind that any track performs light years better vs strictly tires (no tracks).
BTW, I’ve always thought your machine mods and self-made tracks were pretty slick, and I respect the fact you got to work and made it happen!

[john swenson]

great explanation... i've modified my original max 2 adair shackel tracks to fit my 25'' tires. i only had enough grousers that i had to space them about 6'' apart . they are connected with 2 , 2'' wide belting with bolts thru the grousers . belts are on the tire ( inside ) of the grouser . in the space between the grousers i bolted 1'' thick rubber pads ( horse stall mats ) to take up that space . the work great . i did notice the other day in the 5'' wet snow , in a tight turn the tires would spin in the tracks some not gripping cause of the wet belting i presume . running straight , no problem. so i'm thinking of using either some rubber conveyor belting with 1/8'' high cleats spaced 1'' apart or some of the metal plate with perforated holes ( used for traction walking up ramps) to fasten to each pad or grouser for the tire to grab better. i don't want to have to tighten the tracks super tight. also i'm not running chains on the front wheels..would that help instead ? love to hear your thoughts . johnboy va.



9