Talk:Continuous track

message: Steam powered tractors using a form of caterpillar track were reported in use during the Crimean War in the 1850s.
:Reported??  Any more info on this? KAM 00:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC
::I agree that there is evidence of a report. What I should have asked is if  there is evidence of the use of tracked vehicles in the Crimean War? Surely they would have left more of a trace then mention on a TV show's web site.KAM 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crimean War

message: An anonymous editor recently wrote the edit summary ""Dead track" refers to dry pin tracks, vs "Live track" where the rubber bush causes the link to spring back to a designed angle, return rollers are irrelevant."  If this is technically correct, then wouldn't it be the case that live track would not lie slack, so that dead track often corresponds with slack track?  It's quite common in a military context to treat the two as a synonym, even though they may not be technically the same.  —Michael Z. 2006-02-1 16:25 Z
:It's complicated. Dead track/live track is fairly simple. With dead track the links are joined by a ordinary steel pin, it functions just like a door hinge, move it to a certain angle and (absent any other forces) it stays there. German, british and soviet tanks of WWII and most construction equipment uses this type. American and most post war western tanks use live track, the pin (well not always a pin) is bonded into the link with rubber, it's springy enough that you can still bend it (or at least the vehicle can) but when the load is taken off it the rubber rotates it back to it's original angle, usually slightly curled up. If you hunt around on the net you can find pictures of Shermans and such where if the track is broken the last few links will actually be held up off the ground because of this.
:Now whether you use return rollers or not is a whole other matter T34/Panther/Crusader all dead track, none with return rollers. Centurion/Comet/Stalin all dead track, all with return rollers. Abrams/Leopard/FV423 live track, with return rollers. The M113 uses live track but doesn't have return rollers but I can't think of another that does off the top of my head right now (M551 Sheridan and the FV101 Scorpion might but I'm not sure). The trend is towards the live track/return rollers since you can have more smaller road wheels to distribute the weight of the vehicle, and the rubber bushs extend track life since they eliminate metal on metal contact between the pin and link.
:: That's correct & the article should be edited to reflect this. DMorpheus (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scorpion (and the related FV 100 Series) used ordinary link/hinge tracks with polyethylene bushings in the track plate hinges to reduce noise and improve the ant-friction properties of the hinge in the dry. That's why if you've ever heard them being driven on roads the normal track 'squeaking' is absent and they are comparatively quiet for a tracked AFV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live/dead track, slack track 

message: I've tagged this article OR, mainly because of its total lack of references, but specifically because the part about why tank tracks may be undesirable seems very speculative to me. mgekelly 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just delete it citeing OR - it appeared in one huge block by an unregistered user. Alternatively trim it down to a single short paragraph. GraemeLeggett 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimmed most out. GraemeLeggett 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (done.) OR 

message: I've seen images where one puts a continuous track around the 2 pairs of wheels at the back of a truck to increase traction.  Anybody who can help expand that? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: These are called Bogiebands and they do only enhance traction, not much distribute weight, so no real continuous track; concept similar to snow chains, rather --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary continuous tracks for trucks for crossing extreme slippery muddy roads (bogiebands) 

message: Would be good to reduce the number of tank images a little, and add more construction machines. One of the small diggers with rubber tracks would be interesting too, to show that not all tracks are metal. MadMaxDog 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowmobiles would be a good source too. MadMaxDog 08:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: more images of uncommon vehicles are welcome: Please use a gallery to not clutter the in-text images !  --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubber track 

message: I think this article is based on a misapprehension of what a "Caterpillar" is. --- that is simply a trademark of Caterpillar Tractor Company. 
Caterpillar invented none of them nor did the company even exist until 1925, though one of their predecessor companies I think Holt Manufacturing Company had the trade mark requiring Best who made a  competiive product to call theirs a 'track layer'.
the highspeed track system used by military vehicles is so fundamentally different from what Caterpillar uses that relating them seems a bit of a stretch.    they are similar in that they are an endless series of pads to distribute weight, and an Escalator almost meets that criteria.
The tracks typical of Caterpillar Tractor are universally made of two distict components.--- a Track chain--- which is really just that--- a large chain roller chain--- and then to each link there is bolted a pad of an appropriate length to provide the floatation desired.   the pad may depending on application have 1 2 or 3 grousers on it.  A series of rollers on the bottom of the swing frame support the weight of the machine.
the military design is usually a series of pads linked together without a separate rail and the vehicle weight is supported by bogey wheels which typically have a torsion bar suspensions of some type.
The similarity of the two is only superficial   Both are tracks but beyond that there is really nothing about them that is the same...   their drive is different, their suspension is different, their application is different, the method of interconnecting the links is different Rvannatta 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: things are not that easy Rvannatta: there are slightly different designs but a common concept: distributing weight and flatten over bumps in the ground. The lines between designs do not divide civilian an military applications, but the weight and designed speed of vehicles, type of terrains to be adapted for (hard bumpy, swamp or protecting agricultural soil and  roads pavement etc.) and last not least: patents and manufacturers proprietary technology...   --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: no Caterpillar track

message: I am not sure how to appropriately add this to the article.  I have been watching a television show in the US called "Howe & Howe Technologies".  The show revolves around a manufacturing facility that designs and builds fast track vehicles.  The part I find interesting is that their vehicles use metal tracks, but don't appear to have hinge pins.  They appear to use wire cable as a hinge mechanism.  Each cleat has tubes or channels that the wire cable runs through.  Instead of a chain link & hinge pin design, this design uses two wire cables, each near the outside edges of the cleat.  It looks like a track consists of a number of grousers/cleats slid onto two parallel wire cables.  It is unclear how the ends of a section of track are joined together to form a complete loop of track.  To drive this track, they don't use a chain sprocket as there aren't any chain pins to engage with.  Instead, the cleats have small spacers that maintain a gap between the cleats. The driving "sprocket" resembles an open drum of bars.  Each bar fits in the space between cleats.  The bar engages the entire width of the cleat.  The open drum drive seems as though it would be very easy to keep clean and free of debris.  Also, this arrangement seems to eliminate the pinching problem between overlapping grousers in a typical track design.  Also, I doubt these tracks "stretch" much over time as they don't have pins that wear, producing an effective "stretching" of the chain pitch over time.  Anyone know if this is a design similar to a rubber track or maybe a snowmobile track?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.100.194 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This concept is obviously vers similar to rubber track, but might eliminate slipping issues, if the the driving wheels syncronize with the track pattern. However, some rubber tracks also use gear teeth to achieve the same. However, WP needs some further references for citing, to make exist substancially what you might have seen in your dreams... --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Cable versus hinge pin track design

message: Isn't "slack track" the same as dead track; ie where no return rollers are used.
Live track is then the track system where return rollers are used.
--> "Some track arrangements use return rollers to keep the top of the track running straight between the drive sprocket and idler. Others, called slack track, allow the track to droop and run along the tops of large road wheels. This was a feature of the Christie suspension, leading to occasional misidentification of other slack track-equipped vehicles."
Regarding the idler wheel, isn't this discarded ie with slack track continuous wheels ? This, as the the extra tension required as the wheels go up & down trough driving over potholes can be provided by means of the drooping of the track on the return side.
Finally, can the effect of suspension system on the track design be mentioned better, ie the linked bogie system (see http://img.tfd.com/ggse/d2/gsed_0001_0026_0_img7986.png ) as opposed to the seperate wheel suspension of the christie system isn't mentioned.
91.182.245.155 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Live & dead track

message: In addition, add "differential"; methods are 
* Single differential
* Clutch and brake
* Double Gearbox
* Double, triple, controlled differential
Ref= http://members.tele2.nl/s_weggeman/Differential%20steering%20book%20of%20wisdom.htm
91.182.240.216 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering: differential methods 

message: I added an image of the Kegressé tracks, based on an image of a Tamiya robot. Image might be off slightly, but should be about accurate. 91.182.152.129 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in such a simple image, it has two serious errors that make it an unillustrative and unencyclopedic image for illustrating Kegressé tracks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kegressé tracks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Continuous track. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120622072649/http://www.andrew.cmu.edu:80/user/kb13/misc.htm to http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kb13/misc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Extra weight is an advantage when optimizing for traction and power over speed and mobility." This is objectively true and is not for debate. Friction is net force exerted by two objects against each other, multiplied by friction coefficient. There is simply no other variables. The only source of force in this situation is weight. Therefore, bigger weight directly converts to bigger traction. Bigger weight however naturally reduces mobility and speed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.35.145 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight to traction relationship marked as dubious 

message: === Richard Edgeworth's contribution (? ≈ Dreadnaught Wheel?) ===
There's no concrete evidence that Edgeworth achieved anything. His original idea was a vehicle that would move over obstacles by raising and lowering alternate sets of stilt-like legs.
His biography says, "This idea by degrees developed itself in my mind, so as to make me perceive, that as one half of the machine was always a road for the other half, and that such a machine never rolled upon the ground, a carriage might be made, which should carry a road for itself. It is already certain, that a carriage moving on an iron railway may be drawn with a fourth part of the force requisite to draw it on a common road. After having made a number of models of my machine, that should carry and lay down its own road, I took out a patent to secure to myself the principle; but the term of my patent has been long since expired, without my having been able to unite to my satisfaction in this machine strength with sufficient lightness, and with regular motion, so as to obtain the advantages I proposed.
... I never lost sight of this scheme during forty years; I have made considerably above one hundred working models upon this principle, in a great variety of forms; and that, although I have not yet been able to accomplish my project, I am still satisfied that it is feasible."
I see nothing here that justifies crediting him with the invention of a continuous track. Hengistmate (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right Hengistmate, however i was glad to find the reference here though: i did not know that before. so please: 
* do !not! delete without moving the content to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel (as far as references & descriptions lacking there)
* include the mention as : 
--Regine69 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

text: You're right again Hengistmate, i hate counteraction and am so sorry that i had to decide to overwrite your last edits, because i saw you had just deleted a lot. I much respect the work of others and avoid deleting anything exept double or nonsense statements or things to be covered elsewhere via moving to . I also was not happy with the extra === patent history === section either, but did not dare touch it in the first step (i should have done my transformations in smaller steps anyway). And i agree your point in moving most but one or two intro lines over to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel. Same might go for Blinov which might be relevant only as a side note for historical context, however i know nothing about Blinovs concept exept what i understood just from this article.
 My handicap is, i am not native english, so it is not easy for me to create writing content and i prefer going for logical structure and image galleries rather. This is why i would leave the text to you now for a day or two and appreciate if you look over the text version i have commited as a whole to apply all your corrections, exept for discarding content that might still be useful elesewhere (see next section i will create below here in a few minutes). The text might also deserve some additional headlines for each detail, to help navigation and prevent doublications.  --Regine69 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadnaught Wheel & Richard Edgeworth 

message: There's no concrete evidence that Edgeworth achieved anything. His original idea was a vehicle that would move over obstacles by raising and lowering alternate sets of stilt-like legs.
His biography says, "This idea by degrees developed itself in my mind, so as to make me perceive, that as one half of the machine was always a road for the other half, and that such a machine never rolled upon the ground, a carriage might be made, which should carry a road for itself. It is already certain, that a carriage moving on an iron railway may be drawn with a fourth part of the force requisite to draw it on a common road. After having made a number of models of my machine, that should carry and lay down its own road, I took out a patent to secure to myself the principle; but the term of my patent has been long since expired, without my having been able to unite to my satisfaction in this machine strength with sufficient lightness, and with regular motion, so as to obtain the advantages I proposed.
... I never lost sight of this scheme during forty years; I have made considerably above one hundred working models upon this principle, in a great variety of forms; and that, although I have not yet been able to accomplish my project, I am still satisfied that it is feasible."
I see nothing here that justifies crediting him with the invention of a continuous track. Hengistmate (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Edgeworth's contribution (? ≈ Dreadnaught Wheel?) 

message: Also, Dreadnaught wheels / Continuous track#Dreadnaught wheel are listed here. Are they justified? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right Hengistmate, however i was glad to find the reference here though: i did not know that before. so please: 
* do !not! delete without moving the content to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel (as far as references & descriptions lacking there)
* include the mention as : 
--Regine69 (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

text: You're right again Hengistmate, i hate counteraction and am so sorry that i had to decide to overwrite your last edits, because i saw you had just deleted a lot. I much respect the work of others and avoid deleting anything exept double or nonsense statements or things to be covered elsewhere via moving to . I also was not happy with the extra === patent history === section either, but did not dare touch it in the first step (i should have done my transformations in smaller steps anyway). And i agree your point in moving most but one or two intro lines over to the main article Dreadnaught Wheel. Same might go for Blinov which might be relevant only as a side note for historical context, however i know nothing about Blinovs concept exept what i understood just from this article.
 My handicap is, i am not native english, so it is not easy for me to create writing content and i prefer going for logical structure and image galleries rather. This is why i would leave the text to you now for a day or two and appreciate if you look over the text version i have commited as a whole to apply all your corrections, exept for discarding content that might still be useful elesewhere (see next section i will create below here in a few minutes). The text might also deserve some additional headlines for each detail, to help navigation and prevent doublications.  --Regine69 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadnaught (sic) Wheel: moving to its own main article 

message: The article i found here in Continuous track is just precious for its very detailed historical analysis, not to be found in de:WP, though de:WP features even two separate articles:
# :de:Gleiskette, linked via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11821162 "continuous track" to :en:Continuous track
# :de:Kettenfahrzeug, linked via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q940913 "tracked vehicle" to :en:Tracked vehicle which seems to only #redirect
The two german articles are not well structured either with some doublications for general track technology and common history.
; The plan is, to draw a sharp line between 
# one article covering the principles of continuos track drive "bottom" technology with its detailed patent & development history (most of which is found here) 
# one article giving the overview of all the tracked vehicles and their custom application purposes of today + a gallery of some famous historical vehicles, as a "catogery navigation center", but not going into any detail to be covered by continuos track.
The idea is to complete :en:Continuous track first with some stuff from de:WP and then translate it back.
The second article (still lacking on en:WP ?) needs to be done mostly from scratch, however this should mainly be mere collecting links & pictures.  --Regine69 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: this might proove to not have been the best idea then ? --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  de:WP + en:WP collaborative plans on "continuos track" & "tracked vehicle" 

message: That article has a tag stating that it has been decided to merge it with this one.  I don't feel ready to do that at this time, but I remind others in case they do.  David R. Ingham (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: this might proove to not have been the best idea then ? --Regine69 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Tracked vehicle]] article with this one (2013) 

message: Anybody with knowledge on this? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy consumption? 

message: First sentence of the article refers to tracks "driven by two or more wheels". As far as I know typical track systems run about two or more wheels but are overwhelmingly driven by only one of them. Am I missing something? Totensiebush (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the original editor meant either 1 per track (2 tracks = 2 driving wheels) or was talking about multiple wheels of any type (not just driven). Either way, we should probably just delete that last clause of the sentence.  Stepho  talk  08:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driven by two or more wheels