View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-09-2011, 18:09
Hawiian Cadder's Avatar
Hawiian Cadder Hawiian Cadder is offline
Registered User
AKA: Isaak
FRC #0159 (Alpine Robotics)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Fort Colins Colorado
Posts: 573
Hawiian Cadder is a name known to allHawiian Cadder is a name known to allHawiian Cadder is a name known to allHawiian Cadder is a name known to allHawiian Cadder is a name known to allHawiian Cadder is a name known to all
Re: Belt Driven instead of Chain driven

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
They do?



And what about the kit frame is imprecise at all? It's not like the kit holes are randomly placed.


Indeed true, though usually belt pulleys don't need separate hubs like smaller chain sprockets do.

Belts are workable just like chain but they require a bit more thought and design than a standard 35 chain drive-train to work. You also have to be careful with belt reductions to make sure you're not putting too much stress on the pulley teeth.
My wording was not as precise as it should have been, what I meant was the kit frame has some weaknesses in that it lacks rigidity. I also have found that the kit frame doesn't tend to stay perfectly square without a substantial amount of additional support (plywood, or larger gussets) so I would choose to use chain with the kit-bot purely because the flexing might cause damage to the belts, and if the frame warps into a parallelogram, the belts will wear out at an accelerated rate.

This white paper does a good job of quantifying the bending problems on a standard 2010 robot. the frame bent enough to throw #35 (i think) chain, so belts would be out of the question.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2398

Last edited by Hawiian Cadder : 01-09-2011 at 18:09. Reason: forgot link to white paper.