Challenger Extreme recomendations by TRACKS USA

how about 9942?

Thanks guys! Great to have someone with high sales numbers to give out some info based on statistics.

You mention small drivers. What would you consider small in the different pitches used today?


Rune

Glad to hear that! I can now buy a track for my dragon with peace of mind.

So.... do they build a 2.86 3" track? 9116/9115 are 3.0 pitch.

Keep us posted, this issue has put a new track on hold for myself and I'm sure others.

Bruce, I sent you a PM.

First of all... Thank you to Bruce at Camoplast for taking the time to clear the air here.. and for the hard work you do to make sure that legitimate warranty claims are taken care of.

I'd hate to see this get blown out of proportion and have people assume that their tracks are inferior... NOT THE CASE HERE.

IMO, I do NOT believe that all the 3.0" tracks are problematic....

Are some people having warranty type of problems YES.

NOR are 2.52 tracks... Both of these have been working well for years.

In fact... Tracks USA did not mention ONE single 2.52" pitch model in the list of tracks they have been having problems with.

Yes, there are some of the CE tracks that have been having problems lately, but I believe that it is limited to that....SOME of the tracks

TracksUSA is saying that they have been having some failures on SOME of the Challenger Extreme tracks.

9943 -> 15" wide, 162" Challenger Extreme, 2.5" lug height, 3.0" pitch
9944 -> 16" wide, 162" Challenger Extreme, 2.5" lug height, 3.0" pitch
9115 -> 16" wide, 162" Challenger Extreme, 3.0" lug height, 3.0" pitch
9116 -> 16" wide, 162" Challenger Extreme, 3.0" lug height, 3.0" pitch

All tracks from the venerable Polaris series IV, to the Ski Doo Powdermax, To the Yamaha Maverics, to the Arctic Cat Challengers and Power claws are not made on a drum and NOT having problems...

The tracks mentioned here ARE only a small percentage very TALL lug (3" and 2.5" tall lug) tracks... Many of which are on high boost turbo'd sleds with amazingly high track speeds operating often times in hardpack spring snow ("Hero snow"). Damage on these tracks can occur long before the problem shows up.... Meaning that a quick rip down the trail to catch up to your buddies 2 weeks ago could have damaged the track and set it up for failure down the road. A paddle lost today may have been caused by damage done a few days or a few months ago.

If you have one of these tracks and blaze up a chute with 80 + mph track speeds..... in marginal or hardpack snow conditions.... on a super stiff 3"/2.5" tall lug track...on a 250+ HP sled.... you cant expect the track to last very long, IMO. Regardless of what you paid for your track.

In these extreme conditions, you have to look at the track as a "consumable" part... much like a drag slick or a tire on a Nascar vehicle. Are the tires that Dale Jr. or John Force uses defective because he goes through multiple sets in one day... no.

Some of these Challenger Extreme tracks ARE having problems and the warranty is only as good as the person selling it to you.... If they are not willing to address your issues with your track with Camoplast ... well you chose the wrong dealer or wholesale distributor and may have a more difficult time getting your track warranty taken care of.

I am a little confused as to why the 2.86 track would be manufactured using a superior process, and then be recommended because of it, and then recomend using larger diameter drivers which would be a 3.0 pitch- assuming the same number of teeth. 8 tooth 3 pitch is larger than an 8 tooth 2.86 pitch. I know the statement was probably made to consider changing from 7 tooth 3.0 pitch to 8 tooth 2.86 pitch. But the question I have is, If a larger diameter driver is more desireable than a smaller diameter driver (I do understand this concept) then why build a higher quality track that fits the smaller diameter driver?

I think it's because your looking at two very differant issues as being all one issue.

2.86 is supose to be a better build process then the 2.52 and 3.0 pitch.

I don't see why this is as issue, if there are two tracks that are the same model and simaler ( we all get that pitch is based on length and vise versa ) why you would build one using a differant manufacturing process then the other two simply based on pitch or length... one would think that every camo extreme would be built using the same process as all the other camo extremes.

Driver choice is based on diameter (or tooth count), not pitch. When he refers to a "small" driver he does not mean a 2.52 vs a "large" driver being a 3.0. Rather a 6 tooth would be "small" in any pitch, were a 10 tooth would be larger regardless of pitch.

This I understand, the smaller diameter drivers needed to get a 2.5" lug to clear a chassis that was only designed to run a 2" lug, will indeed creat a tighter bend radius and in turn creat more heat and stress between the rubber and the cords. That being said , maybe they need to advise a recomended minimum diameter for there tracks.

I'm sorry but the idea that a track is a wear item on a sled is B.S. ... on a 300+ hp sled sure I get it. On my sled I should be able to run 10-15 miles of trail ( with my scratchers down if the snow is hard ) to get to the steep and deep with out worring about lugs coming off. If I race my buddy across the lake at WOT once or twice a year my track should stay together. That being said, it would be up to me to build a sled that will run the track within it's limits in regard to driver diameter, wheel diameter, and track angles.

I also understand that terrain is another big factor and if I hit a rock while climbing and tear a lug off then it's just part of the game, however if it delaminates at the cords and allows the track to delaminate further, and I have installed a reasonable diameter driver, and skid wheels on a NA sled motor under 250hp then there is something wrong there.

These things are not tires, if I got 1,000 miles out of a 700-800 dollar set of tires I'd be just as mad. Camoplast needs to give us some guide lines for what there track is built for, then if you choose ignore that and you have a problem then it's your fault.

Does not make sense?

Is camoplast going to make a 2.86 pitch, 3 inch track?

2.86 pitch is a better product.......But we dont make it in a 3 inch.

Am i missing something.....its late and yes i am exhausted.

So when should we be able to see the 174X16X3" track in a 2.86 pitch. Going to need it soon. Be glad to test one out if they are so much better. I'm guessing the only sleds that ran a 2.86 pitch track are the doo 800's making 101 hp at altitude.

Am I missing something? If the 2.86 build process is superior, why not use it whem making the 2.5 and 3" tracks?

Is Camoplast going to make a 2.86 pitch, 3 inch track?

2.86 pitch is a better product.......But we don't make it in a 3 inch.

Am i missing something.....its late and yes i

Click to expand...

I highly doubt they will make a 3" LUG, 2.86" pitch track... The molds cost WAY to much, in the hundreds of thousands, and there is not enough demand.

They MAY make a 15" wide one though... Ask them for it... drop them an email.

2.86" PITCH... 3" LUG... (they don't make that)

Am I missing something? If the 2.86 build process is superior, why not use it whem making the 2.5 and 3" tracks?

Click to expand...

The cost to make the 3" tall LUGS would be prohibitively high at the current demand levels... How many people have you run into on the mountain that have the 3" tall Lug tracks (162 or 174 x 16)??? Maybe at BIS or YamiFest... but not on the average day.

They DO make it in the 2.5" tall LUGS, 146, 155 and 163 in BOTH 15 and 16 wide.

The 3" tall lug... only in 3" pitch and probably will remain there unless they get demand for a thousand of them.

What happened to companies wanting to sell good products? They know a product has a problem but don't plan to fix it... something wrong there.

Granted most of there products work good, but this is the way the sport is headed. More sleds are running sick HP number and running way hi track speeds.