Perhaps then his tracks would be best applied in "feather weight" vehicles and in vehicles operating on better groomed/smoother surfaces? Would it be potentially feasible in a 50lb tank with a very robust tensioning system? Mike Butts
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Frank Pittelli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Derek's experience is the rule, not the exception. > > Based on my experience (which goes back to the original dual-chain bicycle > track) and the collective experience of everyone who has built, tested and > battled such designs in the last 15 years, the dual-chain design is far more > problematic than either a single-chain design or a link-drive design. > Lateral forces on the track immediately cause the chains to skew, which > increases the likelihood of jumping one of the chains off a sprocket tooth in > rough terrain. Guide horns help decrease the likelihood, but doesn't > decrease it enough to make the tracks reliable enough in our world (which is, > by far, the toughest test of scale tracks). > > When it comes to chain designs, size matters. Based on quite a few people > who have tried such an approach over the years, #40 chain is too small and > not rigid enough to be used as either a single-chain or dual-chain track > design in our operating scale and terrain. On the other hand, #60 chain is > so rigid that it has proven very reliable when used in a single-chain design, > thereby eliminating the need for a dual-chain design. > > That said, the design being discussed is the first time someone has used pins > that go from one side of the track to the other, using the track pad itself > to keep the pins parallel. This *could* provide the rigidity needed to > prevent chain skew in a hard turn, thereby preventing a dreaded derailment. > I say *could* because it all comes down to the stiffness of the plastic pads > and the amount of sideways movement allowed between the pads and the pins. > No amount of calculation or workbench testing will provide the required > answers. The track needs to be installed on a tank chassis and driven > through the roughest terrain possible by an operator skilled in abusing > vehicles to determine if the design is reliable or not. > > Battlefield-tested isn't a marketing slogan. > >> On 10/29/2015 12:26 PM, Derek Engelhaupt wrote: >> I believe I said the tracks might have issues staying on since they are >> similar to my design that I abandoned because they didn't stay on in >> high stress due to lack of the center guides. Even with the center >> guides, mine flexed too much side to side so they still came off the >> sprockets. > > -- > -- > You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. > To post a message, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] > Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "R/C Tank Combat" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
