OMG watch this vid til the end. Check out the belt length, and the Angel of attack 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx_v_vtXvVM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx_v_vtXvVM
Rear Axle Drive Technology
- Thread starter M.M. 700
- Start date
No No No, they have a section in the vid called "deep snow"
I think maybe they have a different concept of "deep snow".
I don't know where he learned statics and dynamics, but I'm thinking BS.
That secondary looked like it was placed perfect, to catch a toe, or grenade you in nads when it explodes, or when that 12 foot long belt goes, or the chain(?) drive. What was the big deal with the spinning the sled around on the floor? Wonder where the brake was, and why it's so much better, than a front driven brake? Too many questions.
That secondary looked like it was placed perfect, to catch a toe, or grenade you in nads when it explodes, or when that 12 foot long belt goes, or the chain(?) drive. What was the big deal with the spinning the sled around on the floor? Wonder where the brake was, and why it's so much better, than a front driven brake? Too many questions.
creative as all heck, but when done, it doesn't really matter where you drive the track.
the huge idler up front means some less track on the ground I'd bet.
the huge idler up front means some less track on the ground I'd bet.
Trenching machine with the rear drive and horrible angle. Also with the weight distribution set how it is, you'd be in the trees every time you hit the throttle. The long chain and belt setup is a recipe for disaster... seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.
I did see were someone had moved his disc brake to the back wheels. Worked real well. It seemed like a good idea, if the chain broke, but a bad idea if the brake line got damaged, since it ran down the skid.
Seems there must be a way to drive the front drivers, the same way he did the rear, use standard length belts, and save some weight.
Seems there must be a way to drive the front drivers, the same way he did the rear, use standard length belts, and save some weight.
A
Adrenaline Revolution
Well-known member
X2
Interesting idea but I'd want to ride the snot out of a sled set up with it before I'd ever think about doing it.
How in the world can they say they get the same surface on the snow with a 122" as a conventional sled does with a 151"???
The world is full of cool looking ideas and projects that never really live up to their potential.
You only have to look at the Snow Hawk to realize that!
looks like it rides like a rock too. looks great for jumping 2 with the idlers that low.
Exactamundo.....However there is some different Physics at work. With this rear drive, the drive-cog is PULLING the track where in a typ. setup the cog is PUSHING the track (with respect to the ground) now, it's closed system so one can argue that the top of the cog in a typical setup in PULLING the track around.....I think the only true difference is with regards to the torque of the chain along the track is keeping the rear suspension "tight". Once up to speed (full traction) it would perform like any other sled.
He does have a different track angle/cut so it balances pretty as he shows. It appears to me that that would in-fact drive the rear track down into deep snow.....
Did I just talk myself into a circle??
you can't push a track.
typical sled pulls the track from the front, so the slack is between the drivers and the front of the skid.
on this one, the slack is above the rear drive wheels.
as for thrust, both systems lift the back of track somewhat due to the belt, but drive the track into the ground with the suspension.
like the other guy said, a solution looking for a problem to solve.
typical sled pulls the track from the front, so the slack is between the drivers and the front of the skid.
on this one, the slack is above the rear drive wheels.
as for thrust, both systems lift the back of track somewhat due to the belt, but drive the track into the ground with the suspension.
like the other guy said, a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Since both front and rear drives "pull" the track around you have:
Drive from front (traditional)
** full track is under "tension" from the load
Drive from rear (this concept)
** only bottom surface is under "tension" from the load
Maybe it's much more efficient drive location
It looks to me that the aprroach of the skid "finds" it correct approach angle.....not sure i get it but the animations show it very flat approach (like we like) or very steep (unusual for mtn riding)
Give it some testing time and it may prove to be a decent approach???? I like that he is trying new things and getting real world testing done with some prototypes.
Drive from front (traditional)
** full track is under "tension" from the load
Drive from rear (this concept)
** only bottom surface is under "tension" from the load
Maybe it's much more efficient drive location
It looks to me that the aprroach of the skid "finds" it correct approach angle.....not sure i get it but the animations show it very flat approach (like we like) or very steep (unusual for mtn riding)
Give it some testing time and it may prove to be a decent approach???? I like that he is trying new things and getting real world testing done with some prototypes.
the 12 foot of chain going inside the track to the back would not be an issue???
the big cover for the driven clutch right smack where you want to put your feet isn't a problem???
seems like more to go wrong,
just my .02
the big cover for the driven clutch right smack where you want to put your feet isn't a problem???
seems like more to go wrong,
just my .02
Since both front and rear drives "pull the track around you have:
Drive from front (traditional)
** full track is under "tension" from the load
Drive from rear (this concept)
** only bottom surface is under "tension" from the load
Maybe it's much more efficient drive location
It looks to me that the aprroach of the skid "finds" it correct approach angle.....not sure i get it but the animations show it very flat approach (like we like) or very steep (unusual for mtn riding)
Give it some testing time and it may prove to be a decent approach???? I like that he is trying new things and getting real world testing done with some prototypes.
Drive from front (traditional)
** full track is under "tension" from the load
Drive from rear (this concept)
** only bottom surface is under "tension" from the load
Maybe it's much more efficient drive location
It looks to me that the aprroach of the skid "finds" it correct approach angle.....not sure i get it but the animations show it very flat approach (like we like) or very steep (unusual for mtn riding)
Give it some testing time and it may prove to be a decent approach???? I like that he is trying new things and getting real world testing done with some prototypes.
Similar threads
