Solar projects are increasingly adopting 1P tracker designs, as they are easier to install and more cost-effective for large-scale plants
2P configurations are used in specific cases, such as agrivoltaics, uneven land, and space-constrained sites
The choice of tracker design now depends on practical factors, including cleaning methods, site conditions, and expected energy gains
At their core, solar trackers are mechanical systems: assemblies of steel structures, torque tubes, bearings, and drive components. This multi-component structure gives rise to a range of configuration variants. One fundamental distinction lies in module mounting formats, including 1P, 2P, 2H, 3H, and 4H. Tracker designs also differ in drive architecture, such as single- and multi-drive mechanisms, as well as in the degree of row independence, typically categorized as single-row or dual-row systems. While innovation on the ‘soft’ side – particularly in controls and algorithms – has gained prominence in recent years, hardware design continues to evolve, with ongoing refinements shaping performance, reliability, and installation efficiency.
Among these configurations, the choice between 1P and 2P has emerged as one of the most important design decisions in modern tracker deployments.
1P vs. 2P Configuration
On the topic of variants based on module orientation, since horizontal (H) configurations are not bifacial-friendly, portrait configurations have emerged as the mainstream choices offered in 2 variants: 1P and 2P. In fact, several companies offer both platforms. As to the question which is better, most tracker suppliers we spoke to acknowledge the dominance of 1P trackers. At the same time, 2P remains relevant in certain cases.
Anvitha Ravi, senior manager at Nextpower’s global market intelligence division, says that a majority of trackers deployed globally are now 1P. 2P trackers are being used for Agri-PV and in niche applications and geographies. However, Nextpower says it is addressing nearly any site condition with the NX Horizon 1P architecture. Expanding this core platform over the past several years to include extreme terrain following capability, a wide range of row lengths, and alternative foundation types. If meaningful market demand and a business case for re-entering the market with a 2P system were to emerge, Nextpower says that it is in a great position to do so.
Responding to a question on 1P versus 2P adoption, Chintan Patel, CTO of Sunchaser, revealed that out of the company’s more than 1 GW of installed capacity, over 100 MW is based on 2P configurations. While this implies 1P’s dominance, he also underscores several advantages of 2P. For one, higher installation height, which is beneficial for agrivoltaics, wider row spacing that allows more usable land between rows, and fewer piles per MW, reducing civil costs. However, 1P has gained overall market share because it is more economical and easier to deploy on large, uniform sites.
Patel further explained that even cleaning practices influence the choice of configuration. Earlier, tractor-mounted cleaning systems were common, which favored 2P in some cases. Over the past 5 years, however, module-mounted robotic cleaning systems have become more prevalent. Since these robots run directly on module frames, they operate more efficiently on 1P. For large projects of 50 to 100 MW size and more, 1P is generally recommended due to improved cleaning automation, according to Patel.
On the other hand, 2P scores high on account of bifacial gain. A simple reason: the configuration avoids shading from the torque tube. Patel cited a project in Gujarat where 2P trackers reportedly deliver around 2% higher generation than 1P. The gain is attributed to increased installation height, which enhances bifaciality, improved cooling due to elevated module placement, and avoidance of torque tube shading. TrinaTracker, while offering both 1P and 2P products, emphasizes that 1P has become the dominant configuration in utility-scale projects. That’s because 2P structures are taller and require heavier steel sections to meet wind-load criteria. This increases both cost and wind exposure, according to YunHua (Kevin) Shu, Deputy Director of Product Management at TrinaTracker. Historically, 2P systems were used in Agri-PV and Fishery-PV applications where higher ground clearance was necessary, but these segments have declined as large utility-scale plants now drive global demand, he adds. This has facilitated the industry’s shift toward 1P platforms that offer simpler design and better stability, underscores Shu.
On the other hand, Trina also offers a 2P tracker called Vanguard 2P, and its latest variant addresses some of the platform’s inherent shortcomings. The product integrates a multi-motor control system designed for higher reliability and coordinated movement along the row, which helps diminish the failure rates and provides better stability during wind-induced events. This enables smoother tracking behavior under gusts and turbulent conditions. Trina also notes that the multi-motor configuration improves tracking performance on complex terrain by reducing misalignment and enhancing control precision across uneven row sections.
The text is an edited excerpt from TaiyangNews’ Market Survey on Solar Trackers 2026, which can be downloaded for free here.
