Can-Am Maverick Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,393 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Before I get shot for the title this is not about what kind of paddle is best!
I have tried several and found I like running skat traks as they seem to do the best for me and my driving style so I am good to go there.

My question is has anyone ran paddles on the front for better climbing, acceleration, handling etc... in fwd or is there just an obvious reason why front buffs are the way to go? I did search on the forum but did not see an answer to this questions so if I missed it please forgive me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
No paddles on front. How many other cars do you see with paddles all the way around? Not many at all. Why? Because it dont work.
Doghouse would disagree! Lol!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hollywood X3

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
No need for paddles on the front. The X3 has a lot of hp and will climb stuff with ease. No need for front paddles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Lol it has been a new mega for the past few weeks... kinda nice if I say so myself I am still reading things that are smart a$$ but cleaner fun.. wondering if he's alright ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
Before I get shot for the title this is not about what kind of paddle is best!
I have tried several and found I like running skat traks as they seem to do the best for me and my driving style so I am good to go there.

My question is has anyone ran paddles on the front for better climbing, acceleration, handling etc... in fwd or is there just an obvious reason why front buffs are the way to go? I did search on the forum but did not see an answer to this questions so if I missed it please forgive me.
I sure see a lot of these out here on the Oregon Dune Trails. Happy medium?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,135 Posts
I would venture to say you see more STU's in Oregon because of the tree shoots. They aren't has thin as skats and can possibly stand up to branches and tree roots a little better.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
I would venture to say you see more STU's in Oregon because of the tree shoots. They aren't has thin as skats and can possibly stand up to branches and tree roots a little better.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
My son in law bounced hard off a sharp stump last weekend at Coos Bay, if not with Bighorns doubtful he would still have a tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Has anyone seen a video comparison to help explain or have extensive first hand experience experimenting with Front Traction on sand tires with a 4X4 driven vehicle in sand?

It's fine that this is "not the way", I can accept that. I am hoping to understand clearly Why though?

What are the factors that come into play and makes a front traction tire in sand a setup that is commonly avoided?

And is it perhaps Location/Conditions specific why that is the norm?

The obvious negatives seem to be the amount of sand that might be thrown up into the air, and presumably around the users line of sight and into the cab maybe even air intake in this case?

Is steering balance an issue?

Is traction balance an issue?

Not finding much information Why this is true, and would like to understand, more than heresy and dogma.

And are there conditions or setups that are more conducive to a moderate amount of front traction with a hybrid rib/low paddle front VS a buff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
Oregon dunes have numerous miles of trails where I can guarantee you without 4wd or turning brakes (n/a on a Can Am) you will not make some of the tight turns and will end up into a tree or pucker brush whereas your front wheels will act as a plow. Having front traction pulls you around the turn.
This is when the throttle becomes you friend with 4wd.

Yes you will at times get sand thrown back in your face and another reason I like the S&B!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
I have wondered if running buffs up front and 10-12 paddle in the rear if the traction difference puts any stress on the 4wd system
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Oregon dunes have numerous miles of trails where I can guarantee you without 4wd or turning brakes (n/a on a Can Am) you will not make some of the tight turns and will end up into a tree or pucker brush whereas your front wheels will act as a plow. Having front traction pulls you around the turn.
This is when the throttle becomes you friend with 4wd.

Yes you will at times get sand thrown back in your face and another reason I like the S&B!
Are you still running what I think are the QBT346 Sand Tires 28x10-14 ,just a guess from photos?

Do you find those to be the right balance? Would you consider something more aggressive in the front?

Could a bit more front traction be helpful in places where it is beneficial locally?

Do you feel that hinders your abilities in any other different common areas at all (I don't understand how, but asking to learn)? I am at a loss to understand why so many others run and advocate for buffs? I am sure there is a reason, but that's the crux of the qurestion.

And what if anywhere are there Disadvantages to a traction tire used in the front in terms of steering or feel if any in other areas exist?

Would a "pure rib" front, even an aggressive/large rib be as beneficial for better front lateral bite while turning sharply in sand VS a front with a moderate paddle that I assume predominantly "Pulls" around a corner.

Trying to understand explicitly why a person would Not want a tire that would supply more pulling power in the front, let alone why it is not more common to have a ~equivalent height front to back paddle?

With my meager understanding, it seems like a "moderate sized" paddle front and back would be advantageous to a "large sized" rear paddle just from a physical forces perspective...but that is obviously not always real world...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I have wondered if running buffs up front and 10-12 paddle in the rear if the traction difference puts any stress on the 4wd system
I would think so?

I would think it would be proportional assuming you have a paddle that can bite correctly?

To move an equals amount of weight it would seem there would be twice the stress in the rear if the front has near as can be called no pulling power?

What confuses me is when in a compromised position say stopped on the face of a steep hill, could a front rear paddle pull out and drive away while a larger rear paddle only and front buff just dig in?

And where is that compromise beneficial as to make it the default configuration for real life as opposed to "in theory" might provide better overall traction in loose sand?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,981 Posts
Are you still running what I think are the QBT346 Sand Tires 28x10-14 ,just a guess from photos?

Do you find those to be the right balance? Would you consider something more aggressive in the front?

Could a bit more front traction be helpful in places where it is beneficial locally?

Do you feel that hinders your abilities in any other different common areas at all (I don't understand how, but asking to learn)? I am at a loss to understand why so many others run and advocate for buffs? I am sure there is a reason, but that's the crux of the qurestion.

And what if anywhere are there Disadvantages to a traction tire used in the front in terms of steering or feel if any in other areas exist?

Would a "pure rib" front, even an aggressive/large rib be as beneficial for better front lateral bite while turning sharply in sand VS a front with a moderate paddle that I assume predominantly "Pulls" around a corner.

Trying to understand explicitly why a person would Not want a tire that would supply more pulling power in the front, let alone why it is not more common to have a ~equivalent height front to back paddle?

With my meager understanding, it seems like a "moderate sized" paddle front and back would be advantageous to a "large sized" rear paddle just from a physical forces perspective...but that is obviously not always real world...
Trying not to sound like a smart- ass, so don't take it that way. What don't you understand? 4wd is 4 wd, whether you are running knobbies, buffs, or mohawks. Any of them will do the same thing, pull you up hills, or bite in turns. Really just depends on the tire manufacturer on whether you want buffs or rib / mohawks.

What you're actually looking for is the best setup for flotation, thrust, bite, and turning. No one tire gives you that. So you have to compromise a little, and get what works for your style of driving.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,981 Posts
I would think so?

I would think it would be proportional assuming you have a paddle that can bite correctly?

To move an equals amount of weight it would seem there would be twice the stress in the rear if the front has near as can be called no pulling power?

What confuses me is when in a compromised position say stopped on the face of a steep hill, could a front rear paddle pull out and drive away while a larger rear paddle only and front buff just dig in?

And where is that compromise beneficial as to make it the default configuration for real life as opposed to "in theory" might provide better overall traction in loose sand?
Please don't run a paddle on the front. You'll be hard pressed to turn, and even then the results might not be kindly.

Front tires can either be buffs / ribs mohawks, or even knobbies. The rear paddle setup is where you need to kind of formulate how many. 10 paddles aren't enough for even a stock X3 anymore, they are putting out more horsepower now than they did. A good starting setup would be 12 full blades, or 14 staggered blades. Any staggered tire has it's own formula to. However many blades, minus 2 and that's your full blade count. So 14 staggered equals 12 full.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top