Interest in tracked tractors grows across North America

Sunday, June 8, 2014

So say the equipment manufacturers, citing better traction and compaction resistance. But tracks are more expensive than tires, and others are less certain about the overall benefits

by DON STONEMAN & MATT McINTOSH



Jean-Luc Jaquemet has been thinking about getting a tracked tractor for about 10 years. This spring, his opportunity came and he put his money on a 525-h.p. Challenger 865.

Jaquemet Farms operates 2,500 acres, with some cows but mostly cash crop, near Winchester in eastern Ontario. Jean-Luc, who farms with his brother Gerald, says the major reason for buying this tractor is to avoid compaction and for easy transportation. The tracked tractor has a big footprint. To similarly spread out the weight of a "tire" tractor of the same size, Jaquemet would need to install "triples" on his four-wheel-drive tractor, and he says it isn't feasible to drive a wide machine through town to fields as far as 10 kilometres away.

Judging from reports by farm machinery company representatives, more and more farmers like Jaquemet are trying out tracked tractors for a number of reasons, including getting on the land earlier in the spring and working later in the fall, better traction, compaction resistance or, as in the case of Jaquemet, tractor width.

California is a traditional track tractor market but "we see activity spread out across North America," says John Deere's Jerry Griffith, division marketing manager for 9 Family Tractors in Waterloo, Iowa. The advantages? Tracks give farmers "a day or two more" planting time in the spring, which "could result in some significant yield gains."

"Dualing up" large metric-width tires give a good footprint, "but still not as much tread on the ground as a tracked vehicle" for traction, Griffith says.

A Case IH representative agrees. "We have seen a dramatic uptick in the demand for tracked machines as farmers continue to be more aggressive about their land management practices" and operations consolidated in the last decade, says Ryan Schaefer, Case IH manager of high-horsepower tractor marketing. "I would certainly say that, above a certain horsepower point, tracked tractors are undoubtedly the way of the future, especially for grain farmers and row crop farmers." Schaefer says costs of production keep going up, even though crop prices have been at record levels.

But not for livestock farmers, Schaefer adds. "The payback of tracks really isn't seen quite as readily as in a row crop or a broad-acre grain situation."

John Deere sells 300 to 370 h.p. row crop tractors with 16-to-18-inch tracks for working between planted rows and 460 to 560 h.p. tractors on 30 to 36 inch belts. Tracks cost roughly 10 to 15 per cent more than a similar-tired tractor.

While Deere's Griffith doesn't specifically cite compaction concerns as a reason to go to tracks – he says the pounds-per-square-inch pressure under tracks or properly inflated dual tires are about the same – Case IH's Schaefer does. Farmers are also more aware of soil compaction with the use of larger and heavier machines, Schaefer says. Tracked machines provide a wider surface area to spread out the weight of a high-horsepower machine over a wider area.

Mike Maco, regional sales manager for the Forest, Exeter and Seaforth region of Case IH dealer Delta Power Equipment, says he has been seeing a lot of interest in tracks, but cites higher costs as a potential reason why some farmers do not consider track-based machines.

Tracks, says Maco, are more expensive to replace than tires. To replace the track on one corner of a large tractor like Case IH's Steiger Quadtrac 500, a farmer could easily pay an average of $8,000, or $32,000 for all four corners. Farmers using tires on a tractor of similar size, says Maco, require duals, which could mean a total of $7,000 per corner, or $3,500 per tire. Brent Falls, parts manager at Roberts Farm Equipment in Chesley, says a large 20.8 x 46 tire can be bought and installed for between $2,900 and $3,300.

Jaquemet bought his Challenger tractor from DanR Equipment, an AGCO dealer in Winchester. According to the AGCO website, "ACERT, Cat, Caterpillar and Challenger are registered trademarks of Caterpillar Inc. and used under license by AGCO."  

Vincent Audet, St. Hyacinthe Quebec based product specialist for Challenger tracked tractors, says the MT 865 C version has a rated engine horsepower of 525, with a peak engine horsepower of 567. The shipping weight is 42,200 pounds and the tractor can be weighted up to 50,000 pounds.

The 30-inch-wide tracks provide 7,080 square inches of surface area. That is about seven pounds per square inch (psi). The 36-inch-wide tracks have 20 per cent more surface area and therefore, Audet says, reduce the potential for compaction considerably. (Jaquemet opted for the 36-inch tracks on the same tractor).

"The nice thing about tractors on tires is they are a lot more versatile," Audet says. "They are more efficient on the road. But when you have to pull something in a straight line, tracks are more efficient."

Audet describes a demonstration last fall in eastern Ontario where a Challenger tracked 350 "engine horsepower" tractor pulled a 13-shank, 15-foot-wide chisel plow eight inches deep at six miles per hour using less than one gallon of fuel per acre. A 430-h.p. four-wheel-drive articulated Challenger tractor "that weighed probably 25 per cent more" doing the same work used 50 per cent more fuel.

Audet says the farmer remained unimpressed and opted to buy an articulated Challenger tractor. "He tried in real muddy conditions. Our (tracked) tractor was a little bit too light and we needed a couple of thousand pounds (of added weight) to get the grip we needed in real muddy clay." Audet says the fuel economy on the tracked tractor was better because the tractor was light.

Doug Parks and his family grow corn, soybeans and wheat in Sarnia. The farm has two John Deere tracked tractors. In the spring, their 450-h.p. tractor pulls a 50-foot-wide cultivator; the 300-h.p. tractor pulls a 60-foot-wide planter planting corn in 20-inch rows. Corn planted into the tractor tracks comes up just as well as in the other rows, Parks says. Compaction can be an issue on their mixture of soils, but he thinks the new lower inflation tires are good at reducing compaction as well.

Cost is a deterrent. "We pay a premium to buy a tracked tractor and don't get as much on a trade-in," Parks says. Tracks generally last as long as tires but cost more to change. Roadwork is hard on them.

Where tracks "really shine," he says, is on grain buggies during harvest. The Parks use two 1,200-bushel buggies, also on tracks, and a 750-bushel buggy on wheels. In wet conditions, the loaded 750-bushel buggy on wheels sinks in more than the loaded 1,200-bushel buggies on tracks. The tracked buggies require more horsepower to pull "in perfect conditions," he allows. "It's the same with the tractors."

Traction isn't the only reason to buy a tracked tractor. Deere's Griffith cites farming near urban areas with a high traffic count on the roads as another reason to operate with tracks rather than dual tires. Tracks make for a large weight-bearing surface area that is long, rather than wide.

Case IH's Schaefer says some municipal and state governments are starting to restrict the width and weight of farm implements. He says he is seeing these rules in eastern Canada and the United States and even in his home state of Wisconsin. Laws may turn the tide in favour of tracks. But don't underestimate the value of reducing compaction damage in making decisions, he says.

"If it was just for the improved safety of running up and down the road, the farm community wouldn't see value in a tracked tractor," Schaefer says. "The value really comes into play in your ability to reduce and manage compaction." Case IH tracked tractors vary from 370 h.p. to 620.

Peter Jeffery, senior farm policy researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says generally farm equipment is exempt from length, width, height, and weight rules in the Highway Traffic Act. However, operators need to yield half the road to oncoming traffic and must consider physical limitations between bridge side rails, the distances between mailboxes and the height of overhead wires.

Back in Winchester, Jaquemet was enthusiastic before the planting season got underway. "I don't know if it will be great or not," he says. It is his first experience with a tracked tractor, but he thinks the next combine he buys will be on tracks.

As well as promoting what he feels is better resistance to compaction, AGCO's Audet also promotes superior traction in the field, referring to "Bowers' Rule." Audet says Wendell Bowers, while an agricultural engineer and professor at Oklahoma State University, tested 300-h.p. tractors, one tracked and one on wheels, on concrete, on firm soil and on looser soil.

According to Audet, wheeled and tracked tractors pulled the same on concrete, while the tracked tractor had a 14 per cent traction advantage over wheels on firm soil, a 32 per cent advantage on loose soil and a 42 per cent advantage on soft soil.

But Ben Hawkins, an agricultural engineer with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, says "Bowers' rule of thumb" was developed in 1978 and has generally fallen into disuse. Tracks have evolved, he says. Some of them get more traction from increased contact with softer soil than on asphalt, which tends to be slippery.

Overall, Hawkins says, tracked tractors operate optimally over a wider range of conditions. Weighting and unweighting tire tractors for optimum efficiency in varying soil conditions can be painful, and weighting tires is often done only once. According to a summary of tests at the Agricultural Technology Centre in Lethbridge, tracks can develop "substantially more force than rubber tires for the same tractor weight."

But tires and tracked systems each have their strengths and weaknesses, Hawkins says, and interpretation of the results of these traction tests is best left to the person who is making the investment.

Greg Stewart, the province's corn industry program lead, agrees that track systems have evolved. But he doesn't know how much better they are than in the past, if at all. Old research from Ohio State University showed that properly inflated (low-pressure) radial tires were less likely to cause compaction than tracks. Over-inflated radial tires were worse than tracks.

Stewart adds: "If you do the math … the footprint of an average track is huge, two to three times the footprint of radial tires, perhaps on the same tractor … What you then have to ask yourself; is that track manufacturer able to spread the weight over the track uniformly so that all of that square inch of surface area is actually bearing load?"

Looking at that research, "maybe tracks aren't automatically three times better because they are three times the surface area," Stewart concludes.

A Penn State University-published compilation of various compaction studies, entitled "Avoiding Soil Compaction," highlights concerns about "spikes" in pressure in soil six inches under the drive wheel in particular, as well as the front bogie and other wheels in the track system. Pressure on the soil equalled or exceeded pressure under radial tires. The research, published in 2000, cited a 225 power take off h.p. 8400T tractor, ballasted to 25,300 pounds, on 16-inch wide tracks.

Stewart isn't aware of any recent research that has compared track design to radial tires. Stewart adds that he doesn't see scientists doing soil compaction research anymore. Any studies presented now are "old data, regurgitated motherhood, and apple-pie-type stuff.

"Have they made improvements in the track design to spread the weight better over the area? I don't know the answer to that question."

AGCO's Audet asserts that the tension on the belts on the Challenger tractor ensures the weight is well distributed along the length of the track. So the debate about compaction and tracks versus tires is likely to continue. BF

Canadian manufacturer is newest entrant in track market here
by DON STONEMAN

The latest entrant in the tracked tractor market is Winnipeg-based Versatile. Adam Reid, director of marketing for Versatile, says the answer to concerns about weight being unevenly distributed across the length of a tractor's tracks is put the tractor onto four tracks.

Reid says there is a tendency for the front end of a two-track tractor to raise as power is applied under load and four tracks keep the weight of the tractor stable front to back.

Versatile, billing itself as Canada's only agricultural tractor manufacturer, entered the tracked tractor market last year with its four-track DeltaTrack machine, in 30-and 36-inch belt widths for field work. These are big tractors. Horsepower options are 450, 500 and 550 h.p.

Reid says because the tractors are articulated, there is not as much disturbance on the headlands during turns. While straight track machines may make tighter turns, berms and ridges may be left behind. "You don't have that with four tracks, or tires," Reid says.

Reid sees the track market separated into two segments: straight track machines produced by Challenger and John Deere, and the four-track systems made by Versatile and Case IH.

Jerry Griffith, marketing manager for Deere's largest tractors, replies that the initial purchase price of a two-track tractor is less than for four, as are operating costs. Two tracks are more fuel efficient because the engine power is turning two undercarriages rather than four. Two-track systems are highly maneuverable and "can basically turn on a dime."

In addition, two-track tractors don't have to be ballasted as heavily as four tracks to get the same drawbar horsepower in Nebraska tests, says Griffith, and two-track tractors take up less room in the machinery shed than four tracks. BF