2.86 and 3.0 pitch Interchangable?

[Bodacious]

I spoke with a guy that said he is using a 3.0" pitch with his 2.86" XP drivers with no issues. Anyone out there with that set up as well? I been toying with the idea of sticking a 146" track under my 2010 Renegade.....but, pulling a tape looks like it will conflict with the OEM Gade tunnel lenght. So next option would be a 141", but have not found one with a 2.86 pitch.( I really don't want to extend the tunnel lenght)

 

[winter brew]

Guys are doing this, but I can't help but think it's not as efficient...and no way you can have more than 1 driver lug in contact at any time. I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.

 

[Bodacious]

Yea...... I'm leary as well. Just wanted to exercise all the options

 

[Dock]

what is the advantage of 2.86 - 3.00..??

 

[tube]

it works fine, I run a 162x15x2.5 3.0 pitch in my xp 860 all year. no vibrations, no problems. many many others are running a 3.0 pitch in xp's as well. go hard.

 

[Dootimes2]

Know a couple doing this also with no problems. They even say that it seems to roll easier than with the 3.0 drivers. Dock 1 advantage is not paying for 2 new drivers. For what it is worth I would spend the extra coin and not worry if there will be any problems.

 

[turbo800]

It may work fine for stock HP. On a turbo Dragon 800 with the cat Powerclaw 3.0 track, it was throwing track clips like candy at a parade...

 

[madmax]

Had 3" pitch on my XP 2.86" drivers for about 600 miles last year. Works fine.

 

[Rally2]

no way you can have more than 1 driver lug in contact at any time

I finally drew some sketches to help visualize what happens at the track / driver interface and I agree with above. Running 3.0 track on 2.86 drivers results in only 1 individual drive tooth carrying the track load at any time.

If my theory is correct I don't see any fundamental vibration issues and I don't see an issue with the track riding at a higher radius on the driver (as I read somewhere).

The obvious drawback I see would be increased load & wear on each drive tooth (dramatically increased). I keep thinking how 1 tooth now carries the load that several teeth used to share.

It would be nice to know from some higher-mile 3.0 on 2.86 users how the drive teeth are wearing.

 

[mtncat]

I tried it on a Tnytro, started the season with a 163 polaris track and the white 8 tooth avids, by mid season I lost 7 paddles on the polaris track so I went back to a 2.25x3.0 camo and the 2.86 drivers, within 50 miles I noticed
the tips of the paddles were missing, when I pulled it back apart the track did climb up the extro by 1/4 inch or better thus causing the track to hit the front cooler, also ruined the drivers in one direction as it put a divet in
the extro plus put excessive wear on the internal drive lugs as well.

 

[Rally2]

I tried it on a Tnytro, started the season with a 163 polaris track and the white 8 tooth avids, by mid season I lost 7 paddles on the polaris track so I went back to a 2.25x3.0 camo and the 2.86 drivers, within 50 miles I noticed
the tips of the paddles were missing, when I pulled it back apart the track did climb up the extro by 1/4 inch or better thus causing the track to hit the front cooler, also ruined the drivers in one direction as it put a divet in
the extro plus put excessive wear on the internal drive lugs as well.

OK I can understand how the track tends to ride the driver teeth at a higher radius as well. Now I'm certain I won't run a 3.0 track on the 2.86 drivers.

Not saying it wouldn't last for years on a stock horsepower XP, I just don't like the principle or the tunnel clearance disadvantage as I'd like to be able to clear a 2.5" lug track.