![]() |
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
We solved the 2X take-up issue by making our winch drum a 2-stage drum (photo) with the return stage 2X diameter of the payout stage. Made the cable rigging quite simple. |
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
Quote:
|
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
The motor is directly connected to a continuous belt/chain/cable around only the first stage which is anchored to the bottom of the second stage. Thus the motor can drive the second stage both up and down. The rest of the system is constrained based on these two moving parts. Basically, it is a conventional cascade lift, attached to a cascade "lowering" system. |
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
Quote:
We have used both methods (continuous and cascading). Both work fine if done well, and both stink if done poorly. My advice is to use a design that allows for easy access to cable tension adjustment and replacement, and make it so that the cable cannot come off the pulleys when tension is lost. |
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
Now I get it. Clever. Gets rather complex with double the cables/belts and pulleys, but it would work. I would probably still choose the 2X take-up reel, it is easy to do and greatly simplifies the rigging.
|
Re: Elevators: Cascaded vs Continuous
Quote:
The other issue I can recall was a direct result of two FPs trying to drive the lift down past its hard stop in 2004. I think we were able to bend the C-channel back to normal; I do know that it held up through the rest of the regional and the Championship and offseasons, and if we powered it today it'd probably still function.:D |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:13. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi