Can anyone explain this to me? I know that pitch is the distance between drive lugs but what I don't get is how they can effect track speed. For instance the 3" pitch Nytro drivers are virtually the same diameter as the 2.52" Phazer drivers. I just read that greater track speed can be achieved with 2.52" drivers but I don't really see how there would be any difference since diameter is the same.
Track Pitch...
- Thread starter Lowedog
- Start date
09phazermichagan
Expert
I would think the closer together the lugs the better beacuse your putting your power through more surface area/more lugs at a time
UP bushman
VIP Member
This topic actually needs to start with definition of 2.52, 2.86 and 3.00 pitch differences. Typically the more track pitch distance on center of the track lugs (track pitch actually the center to center distance) the lighter the track will be to it's length. This also allows for taller lug height and less rotating mass of the track weight. Any time you spin weight even though the lug is taller the lighter the better. That is why usually the smaller the pitch the heavier the track, which is also complicated by the ply of the track.
Example 1 a 2.52 pitch 1.75 X 144" Camoplast Back Country weighs 46 lbs. and is single ply (more lugs means more weight).
Example 2 a 3.00 pitch 2.25 X 141 Camoplast Power Claw weighs 41lbs. and is a single ply (less lugs means less weight).
LESS ROTATING MASS MEANS MORE TRACK SPEED ALSO GEARING CAN BE A FACTOR DEPENDING ON TRAIL RIDING OR DEEP POWDER RIDEING.
Example 1 a 2.52 pitch 1.75 X 144" Camoplast Back Country weighs 46 lbs. and is single ply (more lugs means more weight).
Example 2 a 3.00 pitch 2.25 X 141 Camoplast Power Claw weighs 41lbs. and is a single ply (less lugs means less weight).
LESS ROTATING MASS MEANS MORE TRACK SPEED ALSO GEARING CAN BE A FACTOR DEPENDING ON TRAIL RIDING OR DEEP POWDER RIDEING.
This is what got me wondering is when I read this.
http://www.tracksusa.com/faq.html#pitchtracks
What about 3" pitch tracks?
3" pitch tracks were introduced to the market in 2004 by Arctic Cat. Historically, tracks have been made in 2.00", 2.52", and 3.29" pitch. (Pitch is defined as distance from the center of one lug to the center of the next lug going around the track.) Most track engineers will agree that when all other factors are constant, the shorter the pitch, the faster the track will run. Shorter pitch track equals higher speed.
Track weight seems to have little to do with top speed in tracks of 1.25" and lesser lug height. Many a snowmobiler has related how their Polaris 144" Switchback sleds are no slower than 121" units with the same motor. I can remember the same comparison 15 to 20 years ago with Polaris Indy 650s with 121" and SKS 141" tracks. Often the 141" was faster at top speed! Maybe a little bit slower accelerating sometimes, but the increased traction often overcomes this factor. Remember these two factors when comparing competitor 3.00" pitch short tracks with the industry-leading Camoplast Ripsaw!
The current 3.00" pitch mountain tracks are the result of demand for lighter weight and taller lug design tracks. A 162" mountain track with 2.52" pitch and 2.5" paddles would be too heavy to offer any performance characteristics or marketability, thus we have the current rage of 3.00" pitch tracks. Are they the best performing?
In an "off the record" conversation with a track engineer this summer, he related comparisons last winter in the mountains between 2.52" pitch tracks with 2.00" paddles and 3.00" pitch tracks with 2.5" paddles. He stated that many times the 2.52" pitch track was able to achieve so much greater track speed that its performance was equal to the 3.00" pitch track. I am sure different snow conditions would affect this comparison.
http://www.tracksusa.com/faq.html#pitchtracks
What about 3" pitch tracks?
3" pitch tracks were introduced to the market in 2004 by Arctic Cat. Historically, tracks have been made in 2.00", 2.52", and 3.29" pitch. (Pitch is defined as distance from the center of one lug to the center of the next lug going around the track.) Most track engineers will agree that when all other factors are constant, the shorter the pitch, the faster the track will run. Shorter pitch track equals higher speed.
Track weight seems to have little to do with top speed in tracks of 1.25" and lesser lug height. Many a snowmobiler has related how their Polaris 144" Switchback sleds are no slower than 121" units with the same motor. I can remember the same comparison 15 to 20 years ago with Polaris Indy 650s with 121" and SKS 141" tracks. Often the 141" was faster at top speed! Maybe a little bit slower accelerating sometimes, but the increased traction often overcomes this factor. Remember these two factors when comparing competitor 3.00" pitch short tracks with the industry-leading Camoplast Ripsaw!
The current 3.00" pitch mountain tracks are the result of demand for lighter weight and taller lug design tracks. A 162" mountain track with 2.52" pitch and 2.5" paddles would be too heavy to offer any performance characteristics or marketability, thus we have the current rage of 3.00" pitch tracks. Are they the best performing?
In an "off the record" conversation with a track engineer this summer, he related comparisons last winter in the mountains between 2.52" pitch tracks with 2.00" paddles and 3.00" pitch tracks with 2.5" paddles. He stated that many times the 2.52" pitch track was able to achieve so much greater track speed that its performance was equal to the 3.00" pitch track. I am sure different snow conditions would affect this comparison.
