Escargo and Adair Tracks comparison

[rockrewls]

Wow, it was off the front tire too? That's even more impressive to me that it drove back on and not off. I now my rubber tracks wound have just drove off or sliced my body. But I could never get away with tire pressures below 6psi with my rubber tracks. So with an Escargo track you are able to run 2-3psi in the tires? What kind of sidewall wear do you get from the steel grousers then?

Keith.

The sidewall wear would be no different then UMHW, don't get me wrong im not against adair, their elevated track system is probably just fine like I said, but the flat track systems are all the same and they come off under what I consider very light riding conditions, I guess that's fine if you don't mind the headache, but for me that's not acceptable and maybe for others too.
I mean really that vehicle in the vid was on hard pack no stumps or anything on a light 6 wheel machine when that happened that to me says volumes!!
I know one thing a properly setup elevated belt track design you can even get a flat or very low tire and still drive out and keep your track on, lets face it we don't always have air in our tires they can get punctured or leaks, I know from experience.

Rock

[Buzz]

What kind of sidewall wear do you get from the steel grousers then?

Keith.[/QUOTE]

I've run mine at 2-3 psi plenty (on actual steel escargos) w/o any problems. The key is to make sure the belting is beveled so that it is further inboard than the steel crosser's vertical guide area. The pressed portion of the crosser (not the laser cut vertical paddle part) is smooth and rounded over so there is nothing scraping the tire sidewalls. UHMW has to have a smooth routered edge too to minimize friction.

[2014SE]

I have to chuckle at these guys that go to atv parks and run back and forth through the same mud hole or mud puddle thinking they are AATVing. I been through Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Youkon, North West Terratorier, B.C. and now live in Alberta. In my opinion if your out off roading, not in a atv park on designated trails conditions are much the same everywhere, Downed trees, hilly terrain miles of marshy wet grass lands (moose love that!) rivers and creeks. The only real difference is north of centreal B.C./Alberta your going to see skeg and A LOT more wet marshy ground, Alaskan conditions are everywhere. Some years Alaska has more snow but then like this year we have the snow and Alaska has less. Alaskan conditions are probably better phrased off the beaten path conditions. You know,,,, where no quad has gone before.

When I go out I'm alone, no other Argos or AATV's around. Theirs lots of guys like me, Buzz and Rockrewls go places and do things atv park guys only dream of. The choice to run lower cost flat UHMW is good for some guys, it fits the budget and conditions but if your going 10-15---30-50 kilometres or maybe even more back in the boonies you NEED the best potable machine and accessories. Ox, Argo and Hydratrek make mighty fine machines ane we choose our track system accordingly. Before buying Escargo tracks I looked at all of them, looked at lots of videos and read threads on sites like this (6X6 world). Cost a little more, yes but I'm confident they will get me there and back without falling off and deliver the traction to get over downed trees, rocks and up the hills or along the side hill with the bite to get through and stay on. I can kinda understand defending a product you spent your hard earned money on but let's look at the big picture before bashing a different track because you chose the other brand.

I bought a Argo because it fit my budget and what I want it to do with it, if I had a unlimited budget I would have bought a Hydratrek. I'm not going to bash the guy that bought a mudd ox or Hydratrek because I didn't buy one, I'm a little to grown up for that!

[kghills]

Wow, it was off the front tire too? That's even more impressive to me that it drove back on and not off. I now my rubber tracks wound have just drove off or sliced my body. But I could never get away with tire pressures below 6psi with my rubber tracks. So with an Escargo track you are able to run 2-3psi in the tires? What kind of sidewall wear do you get from the steel grousers then?

Keith.

[rockrewls]

Keith, it doesn't matter if they are pro series or the chain style they are both flat track designs and, you can try to defend them all you like, they were a big problem IMO, and and the front tire came off as well.
It took a bunch of guys helping to try to get it back on to a empty 6 wheel machine, I personally find that totally unacceptable performance and something I would not own.
The elevated belt series on the other hand would likely be fine aside from the fact you would need to add additional traction enhancements.
As well tires being run at 4psi should have no bearing on the performance of a track.

Rock

[kghills]

For me it's just a bunch of testing I guess. First off those aren't pro series tracks, They are the older mud and snow tracks with side plates all linked with chain. Second because its a trail ride and every one with tires tends to fly around I have the tires aired down to around 4psi. Due to the fact that chain holds the tracks together they need to have a link removed occasionally. Mine were due a while ago but I wanted to see just how loose I could run them. It also should be noted the track did not come off. It twisted back undernieth and stayed on. It could be argued that dinking around and counter rotating on rutted side hills is harder on the machine than just driving in a straight line loaded I would think. I was amazed at the fact I could just drive back in them and run the rest of the day with no problems. Seems like people like to go fast on trail rides for some reason. I like to just bore around slow in the untraveled muddy spots.

Keith.

[rockrewls]

And this is why I will not own a adair pro series track for my needs, the guy isn't even in bad stuff or loaded and he's in a 6 wheel machine to boot which is even harder to throw a track on!!
Go to the 34:15 mark of the video
Haspin 2013 Full Ride - Max's, Mudd-Ox's, Argo's - Amphibious ATV's - YouTube

Rock

[kghills]

..sorry, but I only have one Saviour.

While I admire and respect your claim it seems contradictory to taking the word of one person along with the love and acceptance that Jesus Christ taught.

I guess I'm beginning to think someone is on someone's payroll. Is it just me?

I don't know the inner workings of Apache Gear or the number of employees but I guess you could be the only one on their payroll.

Really appreciate reading the discussions on tracks even though they certainly aren't something that would work for us, but you guys know & understand that, don't you?

I really, really, really, have a hard time believing you read the entire thread Bridget. Here is a picture I grabbed from the Dunes thread.

That thread has 27 pages of really cool pictures, videos and information on not only you guys having fun but sand and the what it takes to traverse it.

Man this is crazy. Here I'll post Marc's video again.

now add this

Now add a couple billion cubic feet of fine sand. It could definitely equal something that could work for you. Yes this thread is targeted at Alaska type conditions but it is full of all sorts of correlations you could form between deep powder snow and sand. It also contains a wealth of information about grousers, gear reduction, track derailment etc. Heck I'm actually really excited and I have to run to Michigan if I wanted sand dunes but this opens up that possibility. Buzz has all sorts of Hybrid ideas for tracks. Some of them have been discussed here. I would think even some one like Rock could use a little high speed scout machine at times on a hunting trip. Maybe we need to get someone more like Marc near some sand.

This thread sort of rocks. Keith.

[Buzz]

our machines very seldom get to see higher speeds. If my machine couldn't go over 8-9 mph...it wouldn't affect how I need it to work in the slightest. And though other tracks perform okay if your machine is not loaded or towing/climbing significantly, things change when you start to actually do this. The 0-5 mph range is where the money is made when the going gets tough. Frequently that's all the faster you can travel anyway...even if you were on a quad in the same conditions. Sometimes it gets nasty. The elevated belt track needs far less throttle required to make your wheels turn with equivalent loads (all other things being equal....same machine/engine/clutching/gear set/tire diameter.) So the loss of top end is an absolute non-factor. I don't need to go 15+ mph. I do need the most power available at crawling speeds. I imagine most every other recreational atv/utv is faster than our machines. That's okay, because that's not why we have them. They're primarily utility-based machines (even recreational utility) at least the 8x8's for sure.

I imagine I'm telling you most of what you know already. Your tires turn faster than your track. This style track just requires less throttle and demand from the engine to actually turn the track. Exhaust temps invariably go down, less fuel is burned, operating temps will be less. We frequently drive or climb for a significant length of time under this load, so overburdening your engine can turn into a big deal. These tracks are one of many things you can do to get better performance in this area. You do go slower, yes....but not necessarily. Instead of going fast/slow fast/slow continually burdening your engine/clutches with intermittent high loads and high fuel requirements....almost like starting/stopping in 2nd gear in your car...you just loaf along instead in 1st gear..sometimes just above idle. No different than picking the right prop for your outboard, or impeller pitch for your jet, or gear ratio in your pickup truck. Ideally you want to match the load you want to push with the right gearing (or propping) to make the engine operate efficiently. Just because you can push a taller gear doesn't mean you should. Overpropping a boat is bad for example. And on our machines the clutches can only help you so much. The track just helps a little more. And, eventually, you'll need every last bit of that extra power that the track provides.
The engine is just able to multiply it's power to the track. You don't have to increase the throttle near as much. This continues to hold true even if you do increase the throttle settings as you just multiply the extra power that you are making. And, the slow crawl speed of the machine is very useful in crappy terrain too. You won't use your steering or e-brake near as much to control your speed. Just keep your clutches engage and crawl up or down anything you want.

As I'm sure you know, sometimes smaller engines pushed hard burn significantly more fuel that a larger engine that simply has to loaf along. When you have to flog your engine hard...you burn more fuel. Same concept here. Instead of flogging your engine on tracks (especially when towing or climbing...some of us actually need to do that)...loaf along on tracks instead.
And at the speeds we travel up and over all the crap we do..constantly on and off again...you're essentially asking your engine to push a taller gear on and off again as well, burning extra fuel, and giving your belt a real workout. The gear-reduction and lower power requirement of our small engines still turn the track fast enough to go where we need to go w/o working the engine hard at all. And, if you do need serious climbing power, you've just got that much more....on top of whatever mods you've done to your machine.

[kghills]

The fuel economy is easy to understand Keith bigger loads require more gear reduction and will work the engine less, its that simple, if your only ridding around empty it wouldn't matter what track you run, but many people don't run around empty.
Its no different then a truck pulling a load if you reduce your gear reduction it helps pull the load easier, a high ratio would require a far larger load on the engine to pull the same load thus fuel economy is less.
Ill do what I can on the pics but that wont happen until fall.
Rock

See that's my problem, or at least one of them. I keep coming at this thing from the wrong angle. The loads you guys run almost all the time. I just think of myself in the machine or what I "might" haul. Like me you guys aren't necessarily flying around either. Makes more sense. Just try to have a little room for a camera I can wait.

[rockrewls]

The fuel economy is easy to understand Keith bigger loads require more gear reduction and will work the engine less, its that simple, if your only ridding around empty it wouldn't matter what track you run, but many people don't run around empty.
Its no different then a truck pulling a load if you reduce your gear reduction it helps pull the load easier, a high ratio would require a far larger load on the engine to pull the same load thus fuel economy is less.
Ill do what I can on the pics but that wont happen until fall.
Rock

[kghills]

We get around 3 to 4 ft sometimes more sometimes less, and your weight calculation is a little off it would be around 910lbs our gallon is larger we are at around 7lbs per gallon, as well the weigh of the gear, food, clothes, guns, tools etc would be on top of that we haul it in on 2; 8 wheel argo's and, Moose is what we hunt. I have personally have carried 2 moose out on 1 argo while the other took all the gear etc so as you can see a lot of weight.
We typically like to only have 1 moose plus gear per argo, but if you have fuel cans with you that's not possible as the fuel itself or the fumes its produces will taint the meat if in the same machine. As well if fuel has spilled into the machine by some chance you cant carry meat in it until its been very well cleaned.
I currently have no video's or real pictures to show, too be honest I really have no time for it, when we are hunting we are focused on that not on running video equipment.
I may in the future try to get some video together for this community.

Rock

Rock I understand the no video as it is probably pretty hard to dump someone off in 4" of snow to take pictures when you are trying to get some place. Us ATV park guys have an advantage there I guess. Your hunting sounds like nothing the whitetail guys here do. Some of my friends Elk hunt out west but even that sounds far less remote. I can see where loaded up with gear you would be working that equipment pretty hard. I know how giant a Moose can be. It is hard for me to imagine trying to haul one or two back WITH all your gear and fuel containers. Don't sound like no fishin trip. You really do need to take a couple pictures for us the next time you get a Moose. If you remember PM me at least. I would really like to show my buddies.

oops there you go

I love that video Buzz, especially when you jump out. Thats almost the best part. I going to work you here a bit again though. With that video the terrain is exactly how I pictured what you were needing tracks for. Not the frozen dirt and rocks and stuff you showed in the other video. To me a flat track in that like the Adair given an equal width would seem to have an advantage in flotation. Sort of like the videos I posted. What do you think?

And on fuel consumption. In my arena we call it BSFC. Brake Specific Fuel Consumpion. Usually an engine is making the most power around .400 on my dyno. But max safe power for a NA engine has an AF ratio of about 12.5 at WOT and that will not give the best fuel economy. I guess I am not understanding where the economy difference in the track design comes from. Not needing to drive the inner wheels due to using track tuners makes the most sense to me. Are you saying the elevated design allows you to ease out of the throttle to increase engine vacuum and mileage at cursing speed? I would think that would be more a function of over all gearing. Maybe if the machine was under powered or geared wrong to begin with but say with an Argo with high and low range aren't you close?

Keith.

[Buzz]

Yeah they did a great job, I understand the newest edition of them is 5" spacing what are your thoughts on that verses 3 or 4" aside from the weight savings??
Yeah Kubota engine's are one of the, if not the best engines out there!!
Rock

I don't think you can kill a kubota!

crossers closer together makes for a smoother ride and center tires slip a little easier.

crossers farther apart are more aggressive (each crosser bites harder), cleans out better, but ride is bumpier on hardback. Of course everything is bumpier on hardpack. I've found that your tires affect this as much as anything.

I like 4 to 4.5" spacing on smaller tires like the 22's.... and 4.5 to 5" on the larger tires.

[rockrewls]

Yeah they did a great job, I understand the newest edition of them is 5" spacing what are your thoughts on that verses 3 or 4" aside from the weight savings??
Yeah Kubota engine's are one of the, if not the best engines out there!!
Rock

[Buzz]

rock, that track was on 4-inch centers at the time and weighed a bit more (naturally) than the tracks on 5-inch centers...maybe 25-30 lbs.

the tracks were floating probably more like 3000 lbs altogether and did great. I'd like to try the same with the diesel as it's got a frame that's much lighter/stronger and same thing with the axles...meaning no wheel spacers. So it wouldn't be any heavier with the same footprint. The warranty period is long over on the Kubota (I don't care it's a 40,000 hr engine), so I'd like to juice it up a bit to see if I can maintain track speed a bit better at the higher end of the sticks under load. It's geared low right now. I'd like a little more grunt in the 7-10 mph range to maybe get a little momentum in "loose" or deep snow conditions.