crosslinked uhmw escargo style hybrid crosser

[Buzz]

here's a pic of a crosser. This stuff is pretty strong....we'll see how it does on a track. You can hardly pull very-thin strands apart (left over from machining). Super UV stable.

[2014SE]

Interesting. What's the weight? Theirs dozens of compounds and some are very durable. How the cost comparison?

[rockrewls]

Interesting cant wait to see the test results!!

Rock

[Buzz]

Interesting. What's the weight? Theirs dozens of compounds and some are very durable. How the cost comparison?

I'll see what I can get for a weight, but they are definitely light. Feels more rigid than what I have been using. All the specs are excellent and taylor-made for improved performance in our application (on paper anyway). This stuff is a step up from virgin....which a step up from reprocessed. Feels pretty awesome when you hold it, try to flex it, and basically just scratch around with it. A bit harder to machine, but they turned out perfectly....so we'll see. I'm going to try a couple different cleat ideas. The price is about 50% more than reprocessed, but an economical track could still be made and incorporated with steel.

[thebuggyman1]

Hey Buzz, What is the crosslinked? Is it something like a carbon fiber weave embedded in the UHMW?

[Buzz]

Hey Buzz, What is the crosslinked? Is it something like a carbon fiber weave embedded in the UHMW?

buggyman- best that I can tell, they expose the material to radiation (multiple types can be used) or chemicals.....to rearrange the molecular "bonds" during manufacture...at various stages.

Someone who was a chemist could describe it much better. They can also "anneal" it (heat and cool) to help with this. It's chemistry-type reading to research it and might make your eyes hurt depending on how much you enjoy reading about that stuff.

Over the years, several attempts to improve the material have been made...to include adding carbon fibers.......which actually decreased UHMW's properties. So there have been failures along the way. Crosslinking is the best and improves performance in all areas when you look at the charts. It makes for industrial outdoor grades of UHMW.

[Buzz]

Interesting. What's the weight? Theirs dozens of compounds and some are very durable. How the cost comparison?

I weighed (43) UHMW crossers which is one track's worth for an argo avenger w/25" tires and got 56.4 lbs
that's just the crosser weight. All other supplies..belting/hardward, and hinge will be very close (actually slightly more) than an all-steel track.

So these crossers are 50% the weight of the steel crossers....but all-uhmw crossers require the addition of traction cleats. So you have roughly 56 lbs to work with to add aggressive, reliable traction...before you hit the weight of an all-steel track.

Now they're roughtly 95% as dense as water...most UHMW grades are similar.....so in theory you have a bouyancy advantage (to start out with) of 112 lbs per track.....which is the weight of just the steel crossers (the newer/larger 12" wide tire crossers). But that is before you add aggressive traction. So for a fully-tracked machine, you have a 224 lb buoyancy advantage, and that is only if you are comparing an all-UHMW track to an all-steel track. That is as much as it's ever going to be....and that's only if you go with an all-uhmw track. And we all know how an all-uhmw track does not work in a lot of situations in alaska. So in short order, the bouyancy advantage of an aggressive-traction hybrid track shrinks to....oh...I'm guessing probably 150 lbs in the water vs. an all-steel escargo track. That's on the same spacing and the same width. In fact, the UHMW crossers require longer bolts (3.5" to 4.5" on UHMW vs. 1" on all-steel) x 4 per crosser, so that gives back a little more bouyancy advantage too.

That's actually the weight a very small man or an adolescent child for what that's worth. The key is whether or not you can make aggressive, cooperative skid-steer traction...that works as well as the all-steel in a design that withstands the test of time.

Figured that might be helpful information.
Also, a non-elevated belt track such as the pro-series uses maybe (4) additional crossers per track. It's a little extra crosser weight vs. an all-uhmw escargo style track, but UHMW crossers are buoyant...so it really doesn't matter. It shaves some weight because backer-plates are not used, and lighter-weight structural lag screws are used instead of nuts/bolts. You will have to add additional belt-width and traction cleats in some conditions to a track that starts out at only 14.5" wide. That probably compares to spacers/tuners that the elevated-belt style requires....so maybe that's a wash.
With the escargo style track, having your wheels spaced out gives you quite a bit of stability in the water, which is another + for an elevated-belt style track. Someone once told me the 1st "A" in AATV stood for "amphibious." Stablility in water is important too.

[Buzz]

UHMW is easy to incorporate in that you can machine any shape, so non-standard tires can still be tracked. Having to buy new tires can get spendy. Luckily, most tires on our machines seem to be 10" or 12" wide. But, I do really like how you can tweak or adjust the shape, bolt holes, tire area, guide radius...on and on with UHMW....that part is pretty cool.

[2014SE]

I weighed (43) UHMW crossers which is one track's worth for an argo avenger w/25" tires and got 56.4 lbs
that's just the crosser weight. All other supplies..belting/hardward, and hinge will be very close (actually slightly less) than an all-steel track.

So these crossers are 50% the weight of the steel crossers....but all-uhmw crossers require the addition of traction cleats. So you have roughly 56 lbs to work with to add aggressive, reliable traction...before you hit the weight of an all-steel track.

Now they're roughtly 95% as dense as water...most UHMW grades are similar.....so in theory you have a bouyancy advantage (to start out with) of 112 lbs per track.....which is the weight of just the steel crossers (the newer/larger 12" wide tire crossers). But that is before you add aggressive traction. So for a fully-tracked machine, you have a 224 lb buoyancy advantage, and that is only if you are comparing an all-UHMW track to an all-steel track. That is as much as it's ever going to be....and that's only if you go with an all-uhmw track. And we all know how an all-uhmw track does not work in a lot of situations in alaska. So in short order, the bouyancy advantage of an aggressive-traction hybrid track shrinks to....oh...I'm guessing probably 150 lbs in the water vs. an all-steel escargo track. That's on the same spacing and the same width. In fact, the UHMW crossers require longer bolts (3.5" to 4.5" on UHMW vs. 1" on all-steel) x 4 per crosser, so that gives back a little more bouyancy advantage too.

That's actually the weight a very small man or an adolescent child for what that's worth. The key is whether or not you can make aggressive, cooperative skid-steer traction...that works as well as the all-steel in a design that withstands the test of time.

Figured that might be helpful information.
Also, a non-elevated belt track such as the pro-series uses maybe (4) additional crossers per track. It's a little extra weight vs. an all-uhmw escargo style track, but UHMW crossers are buoyant...so it really doesn't matter.

WOW you had your pencil going today. I don't think your running conditions are much different than here. We have plenty of skag, wet low areas, dry gravely, hills and everything between along with downed trees. Winter is winter, snow, stiff water and cold.

It's a good idea to try and keep the weight as low as possible but in the end their isn't a whole heck of allot of difference in over all weight and bouncy, like you said a passenger at most. Your work with different ideas and designs will pay off, keep up the good work.

[kghills]

UHMW is easy to incorporate in that you can machine any shape, so non-standard tires can still be tracked. Having to buy new tires can get spendy. Luckily, most tires on our machines seem to be 10" or 12" wide. But, I do really like how you can tweak or adjust the shape, bolt holes, tire area, guide radius...on and on with UHMW....that part is pretty cool.

Buzz, you know you might have hit on the esential element on the success of Adair tracks. Thinking about your statement a small light bulb sort of thing was triggered. I get a chance to stop at Adair Argo every couple months taking my son to RC races in the area. Almost every time I am there Tim shows me some different grouser or tire they are going to make a custom grouser for. When we have time we also get to run the creeks and test some of the different designs. It seems to me that part of the equation to sales would have to be Tim's ability to quickly produce a grouser that is profiled to a customer specific tire and or grouser height to fit. Adair has even tracked dual wheeled Argos if increased stability in the water is what your after and without sacrificing boyancy (the first A).

Any UHMW blend in itself is really a very durable material. At the end of the day I wonder if it actually makes much difference or are you just splitting hairs. I mean with all the UHMW based Adair tracks out there now I am not seeing pictures from people showing how their grouser is broke or worn out. Yes some are chipped, gouged etc. but so are steel or rubber tracks or even tires for that matter. After all a track or tire is a wear item. Non stay perfect unless you do not use them and even then there will be some degredation over time. I guess I would start by looking at old tracks, what wears out first? The rubber belting, the grousers, the guides, the fasteners, the tires or maybe the machine itself? Yes I have new chips, gouges and such on my UHMW grousers after climbing the Devils Backbone at Haspin Acres but I am pretty sure a steel grouser would also and the tires on the Jeep that tried it were a little worse for the wear also. Just goes with the teritory. While I think it is great to look at all different types of UHMW I guess until or unless you can show me that there is a problem woundn't it make the most sense to go with the most "bang for the buck" so to speak.

Keith.

[Buzz]

with all due respect, I would expect you to say that (not a bad thing). You're just being protective.
And I do split hairs, gotta keep all the factoids on the straight and narrow. My thought is that there is some merit to using a material that is specifically designed for impact, abrasion, much reduced thermal expansion/contraction (we have huge temp swings- this could affect fasteners), and permanent full-time outdoor use. All UHMW is tough to some extent (even reprocessed), it has to meet a minimum spec.
If you're happy with how it lasts, then reprocessed might be the best "bang for the buck" after all. But, like everything, I'd like to know myself.

[rockrewls]

I agree Buzz, and if Keith is happy with a track that may last 5 or so years and be worn out that's fine, but some of us want our tracks to last 20 yrs or more in all conditions and seasons.
I prefer to not have to buy new tracks frequently and if you can improve upon existing designs with better materials that only benefits the community. keep up the good work and we look forward to hearing more from your testing.

rock

[Buzz]

so imagine this-

you take this crosser and add a 1/2 - 1" tall blade on the outer half only

or

you add a 1 1/2" tall piece of angle (only 1 vertical wall, not "u" shaped) mitered to look like a triangle "pick" secured with the same two outer bolts that connect the track-belting to the crosser...through-and-through fastener.

or

you simply use longer grade-8 bolts to give you oh at least 1" of stiff thread-height to act like studs on the outer corner of the track where they will grab obstacles the best

Each one offers a little bit different benefit of grip vs. weight vs. ease of skid-turning...all while retaining the guide-stability and gear-reduction of the elevated belt.

And, I have been meaning to do "this" for a while....if you run a 4" or 5" wide "segmented belt" on the underside of the crosser... where the bolts go through (ground level)....essentially on the entire circumfrence of the track...in addition to the standard elevated-belt that connects the track-...follow me here....then you segment this belt by cutting it between each crosser. You would probably get some additional floatation of ground-level belt while maintaining the most important aspect of a typical elevated-belt track....the "guide-stablility" where none of the guides can tilt/twist, move, or fold-over...or really even change position in relation to the neighboring guides...because the belt doesn't stretch. The guides are still connected by the elevated belt on the sidewall, but now there are segmented belt pieces as well down near the ground.
The lower belt will actually be composed of many "individual" pieces of belting...they've all been cut.....so that the crosser cleats near the ground can still "splay out" around the end tires. The segmented belt pieces would provide additional floatation under the tires of the machine...at ground level as well. And, you would maintain a huge open clean-out area the full-width of the tires. This extra lower belting might flex a bit (which is a good thing, and it's super tough) but would definitely help, and it would make for large 90 degree hangovers paddles from the face of all the UHMW crossers. I would think this would help paddle.....

This would add some additional resistance to turning...but less than a narrow style....and with no twisting possible. I'm okay with a little extra drag...as long as the GUIDES CANNOT MOVE! That's the biggest problem you have with plowing the belt of a typical ground-level track. The track doesn't want to turn and the guides-move = trouble.

I'm going to try these various combinations while I try to beat-up this UHMW material. All of these combinations will be very light.

[rockrewls]

We await your test results.

rock

[Buzz]

My only thought is that the additional lower belting pieces (segmented belt) might interrupt the main crosser paddles somehow from grabbing as much...who knows for sure. A typical elevated belt track doesn't need the additional floatation at ground level if wide belts are used up higher to connect the guides.....

I suppose you could run a skinnier belt to connect the guides....and run wider, segmented belts near the ground. I know the track will work well, I guess I"m just curious if it will have any noticeable improvments. Something different to try. And it's better than sitting on the couch throwing stones.