1.5" thick repro UHMW crosser (elevated-belt) with 1/8" steel insert

[Buzz]

Thanks for the pics Keith. I'm glad to see that Adair is trying to develop a track style similar to what we have been putting to use in Alaska and one that Escargo has proven since the late 90's on argos.
Also, I was hoping a reversible wheel was in the works, it's the most practical solution...dual valve stems.
I have some input on the crosser (naturally)....it's the everlasting goal to replicate an escargo-style track, and there are some challenges.

There is a reason I've steered away from "facing" a UHMW crosser with steel, or even facing it under "just" the tire to keep it as light as possible. "Facing" a plastic crosser is the easiest way to essentially get a blade, but it has some drawbacks....namely in how well the steel is supported and how it will handle leverage. It is 100% dependant on the strength and type of fasteners.....the plastic body will provide no support. A track crosser that can truly "bite" can be subject to tremendous forces. And, you're still limited to the "height" of the blade under the tire (and ultimately the "bite" your track will have) because you have to have remaining plastic height or "face" under the tire to fasten to. So under the tire, you can never replicate the cleat height of an escargo....unless yoy build it like they do.

In regards to fasteners..this is no place for screws..."facing" just one side (vs. slotting the middle) will increase the leverage and holding power requirement of the fasteners...I sincerely hope that adair doesn't use screws this time. If that's not in the plan, disregard.
It is nice to see the general escargo concept coming into play again in a hybrid fashion. The crosser shape looks similar in shape to a modified escargo style crosser that I cut on the earlier hybrids (forum member CaseyJ) actuallly has some. A weight comparison of that steel-faced crosser vs. non-steel faced would be interesting and good info for comparison.

In regards to weight...I"ve discovered that "under" the tire, the blade provides traction...but on the outside (where it no longer touches the ground) it's more of a surface area "paddle" for snow and deep mud. An elevated-belt crosser machined from UHMW already has this surface area "paddle" (the main benefit of machining UHMW crossers is that it's easy to get different shapes w/o retooling your fabrication equipment. In this case you get the "paddle" part in uhmw), so facing it with steel on the outer "paddle-part" gives back quite a bit of the bouyancy gain you achieved by not fabricating a steel crosser. You don't need steel paddle on top of uhmw paddle.

So, the benefit of UHMW mainly is to increase buoyancy and obtain a paddle. The steel provides lightweight traction. A UHMW elevated belt crosser simply needs lightweight traction. Ideally it's strong and dependable, well supported, etc. It's very difficult to get the strength AND bite of an escargo steel crosser w/o adding enough additional weight to the UHMW to erase the buoyancy advantage of the material.

When you connect the left and right sides of the crosser via steel....you can bend the crossers and they do not "spring back". Escargo has an engineered, very strong 2-piece welded crosser and utilizes high quality steel for strength. I think a UHMW with steel add-on should almost utilize a tall but narrower (width wise) blade on the outer half. So you have the most uhmw strength, tall steel for bite and no tub clearance problems, and the ability for the crosser to still twist and then "spring back"...like UHMW can do.

I have a few more tweaks in the next style crosser considering all of these things. But, like I said, the escargo steel tracks are durable and accomplish all of this, and I can see why for years now many people have considered replicating them. They're just not that heavy.

[Buzz]

forgot to mention, it might be worth making the inside of the crosser more flat.

[SHOTGUN]

Hey new here and just read the thread maybe could add an idea that had crossed my mind. Instead of a blade insert or plate, why not make a metal u channel that slides over the uhmw crosser from inside out. Then the tire will put pressure directly onto the blades (one on each side of crosser) The crosser will be flatter, The blade load will be equal (not on front or back of crosser). The "U" will protect the crosser and the part of the u above the crosser giving bite could be serated or if the two blades might be too miuch surface area to bite the they could be notched to equal the area of one blade. Thickness and material would need to be experimented with to keep weight down(steel gage or aluminum).

[Buzz]

Hey Shotgun, thanks a ton for the input. We all appreciate it for sure.

That is exactly the kind of thing or suggestion I hear from lots of my buddies. It's a great idea, and I considered it early on too. In fact this kind of stuff is what I ask friends for advice on up here. Guys that are familiar with building buggies and playing with steel and fabricating old school tracks and hunting buggies. These are where I get some of my best ideas. Sometimes they have them!

The "shoe-ing" concept you describe, comes down to weight, metal height beyond the plastic to "bite", and a couple of other factors. It's been a while since a have revisited this, but my concerns were:
I've never liked the idea of having a "u" shaped traction device mainly because they can pack with snow....especially if they're not very tall...but even then...seems like snow/ice just has an affinity for filling and sticking inside of voids. And, in theory it would be 3-times as much metal surface area and weight (3 metal walls) than a simple flat-bar insert, just to get the same amount of cleat "height" sticking out past the UHMW.....x many many crossers, and as you know it starts to add up. And, you're still limited to how much cleat height you could get for standard machines w/standard tub clearances. I do think that small legs of metal sticking down (like you describe), with UHMW in the middle might be a little less prone to snow/ice buildup that a solid metal u-channel where all 3 walls make contact with the snow/ice.
So the increase in weight (cumulatively over many crossers), snow/ice build-up, cleat-height limitations, and possible compatibility of standard u-channel inside wall dimensions vs. UHMW standard thicknessness available will come into play. At one point I looked at all of that, but it's been awhile. I honestly don't remember.
You'd just have to machine a small recessed area inside where the tire rides too equivalent to the wall thickness of the u-channel so it could set down flush.
You'd just adjust the outside border of the crosser a bit when you machine the border so no big deal there.

[Buzz]

Maybe Old Tucker has some input on snow/ice build-up on his channel-tracks. He'd be a good guy to ask about the height of his u-channel "legs" (cleats). He seems to get pretty good "grip" I think. It would give an idea of at least a minimum of what additional height steel.....sticking past the UHMW....would be needed. I shy towards the taller steel because it just bites amazingly well especially when climbing or towing. (utility and hunting use) It all comes down to that....and trying to accomplish that w/o eating away at your tub clearance. There are some ways around it....but I'm trying to see if they'll "actually" bite as well. Actually testing under extreme conditions will tell for sure.

I keep hearing that "weight" is such a concern, so if you truly want to eliminate that concern (which isn't a big giant deal in my mind)...then you have to go about making your hybrid crossers in a fashion that keeps them light---and---strong. UHMW can be strong, but the traction side has got to remain light.

[Buzz]

Another way to utilize steel "channel"...if you want... in this design (like channel tracks) but have big paddles (like escargo) is to simply router the large tire guide/belt-mounting blocks and place them directly on top of a piece of steel channel. So you end up with basically a fat-body escargo/channel crosser that could take advantage of over an inch of steel cleat height with lightweight paddle surface area and an elevated-belt mounting area. It would be effortless to adjust the width for any tire and doesn't require any different amount of UHMW for different crosser widths....just a bit more or a bit less steel channel. So it would be lighter than channel with more paddle than anything out there.

I mentioned this very thing earlier and posted a picture...on one of these escargo or hybrid-related threads (don't remember), but I'm going to test it to see what thickness of steel channel would be needed to maintain strength. Track assembly would be in the typical escargo fashion w/ grade 8 bolts, sandwiching everything down tight. It should be plenty strong. And very flexible for all tires widths. Basically anything. I'll test it adequately for durability with loaded 8-wheelers in Alaska conditions before I think about telling one of my buddies to build one.

[rockrewls]

Good info, I just hope your not stepping over a dollar to save a dime in the end, although its seems fun to try different things and my feeling is that's what you folks are doing, it's great and can only benefit this community in the end.
Buzz what about a considerably thicker crosser with a lower profile to enable a taller blade for more traction?? eg 1 3/4" wide, 3/4" thick or something to that effect? it will maintain strength, but allow more room for blade height without the chance of hitting the argo tub.

Rock

[Buzz]

Good info, I just hope your not stepping over a dollar to save a dime in the end, although its seems fun to try different things and my feeling is that's what you folks are doing, it's great and can only benefit this community in the end.
Buzz what about a considerably thicker crosser with a lower profile to enable a taller blade for more traction?? eg 1 3/4" wide, 3/4" thick or something to that effect? it will maintain strength, but allow more room for blade height without the chance of hitting the argo tub.

Rock

I never have a short answer, but-
Good point. Therein lies the problem. At the end of the day, how much time and money do you have into it....to come full circle. But sometimes you learn new things along the way that you would never thought of otherwise...if you had not tried.
I went with 1.5" material for additional strength for that very reason...knowing that you're going to have to compromise on your UHMW height (with a UHMW bladed style crosser). At some point it would become cost prohibitive to use even thicker UHMW...you know...just to machine most of the cleat height away. I like to think of it like a floor joist...additional cleat "height" gives strength just as effectively.

As it is, I probably should have put 3/16" flat bar instead of 1/8"....as the remaining UHMW (very little with a bladed hybrid) does very little to provide any rigidity). It's all about the steel. Flat bar inserts are not heavy. We're lucky to be able to watch Spookum's crossers (3/16") vs. mine (1/8") just to know the difference. Both heavy, higher powered machines, different amounts of cleat height and steel/plastic thickness. You gotta test the difference right? It would be easy to just throw 1/4" in there..but weight adds up right? Escargo has managed to use an strong design (and quality steel) to find a great balance of strength vs. weight with a super tall traction cleat.

This is a hobby- I have a lot of fun doing this just like I do wrenching on other things. You have to be that way a little if you're going to enjoy owning these machines and make them better..as...eventually they start becoming work. So if you're not that way...the novelty wears off. So it all just kinda goes hand in hand. And, to be honest I enjoy the challenge....I think that's probably the biggest thing. Until you get something "dialed" it's hard to stop thinking about it. But instead of going wider than 1.5" UHMW, I'll try to incorporate more cleat "height" for additional strength and try different designs. I'm just not too keen on very short UHMW height. Thin walls start to get sketchy.
long answer but I hope that helps

[Buzz]

buddy has an avenger that was running poorly. Got it sorted out, so we went out for a short little test ride. A couple little climbs, tiny bit of snow, and a little bumpy ground with a few logs. Nothing too crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSnbhvmYhTA

[rockrewls]

thanks for sharing the vid.

Rock

[2014SE]

That is a very good video Buzz. The Mudd-Ox really worked those tracks. I thought the background views in the 2 minute plus range were spectacular. Very impressive what you were able to climb.

Thought I would add another design for you to look at.

This is one of Adairs hybrid elevated grousers. The stainless steel plate goes on the forward side of the grouser. This track will be installed on the new Adair series Argo Frontiers. The first one will get a shakedown run in 3-4 weeks at the Mud Nationals and if everything looks good will ship up to Alaska is my understanding. Brandon always takes a lot of videos at the event and will be with the group again this year. Among the many special features of the Adair series Frontier are custom wheels that are reversible. When the tracks are installed the wheels are reversed over the center wheels to be the correct offset for use with the track tuners. You can remove the tracks and track tuners and just flip the center wheels if you want to run just tires. I thought that was pretty clever. I think there are like 15 machines in the first run all with Adair elevated tracks but not all will get the steel faced version of elevated or "classic" track but all do get the elevated disign for gear reduction and a low gear trans.

Keith.

That will be a expensive track with stainless grousers and the weight will be at least the same as a Escargo grouser. Look cool and not rust if they use stainless bolts but expensive.

[rockrewls]

That will be a expensive track with stainless grousers and the weight will be at least the same as a Escargo grouser. Look cool and not rust if they use stainless bolts but expensive.

That design is not for me, I don't trust the stainless plate to stay attached to the crosser!! and if I was gonna spend the money I might as well get the escargo.
the metal insert in the center of the crosser and bolted through would be a much better design imo!

Rock

[Buzz]

disregard-wrong spot

[2014SE]

buddy has an avenger that was running poorly. Got it sorted out, so we went out for a short little test ride. A couple little climbs, tiny bit of snow, and a little bumpy ground with a few logs. Nothing too crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSnbhvmYhTA

Good video again. I have a hard time with video here in camp, I have to watch on the cellular network and that's shorty at best with 1 maybe 2 bars but finally got it done.

Read and see here you took the tracks from tandem and made singles and went back to Argo tires. After trying them both ways are you recommending singles over tandem? I was thinking id like to try tandem but after your earlier video I was rethinking that and waiting to see what you're experience and opinion was.

The tracks look like they perform quite well now and I didn't see any tire slippage this time but I'm watching on the small screen on a iPhone here.

[seanno2]

Well after reading all 9 pages of this thread and all 10 pages of the thread escargo v.s adair I have not come to a conclusion of which tracks I want. I called escargo in Wisconsin today and it would be $3700 for just the tracks. I called Adair tracks after that and it would be $3500 for tracks, wheels, and snow extensions. So price wise the Adair tracks are sounding really nice.

So what will I be doing with my Max IV 6X6? I'll be swimming about 3 hundred yards on my lake and driving up on a floating bog to go duck hunting. I'll be driving in snow that is usually no deeper then 3 ft. I'll be driving around in muddy/rocky terrain.

So honestly which tracks should I buy?