View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-11-2014, 15:31
Arpan Arpan is offline
Olin class of 2019
FRC #3061 (Huskie Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Naperville
Posts: 169
Arpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud ofArpan has much to be proud of
Re: Drive Train Design - Weight & Belts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me View Post
It's really worth noting that specs are pretty conservative numbers based on thousands of hours of runtime. FRC robots run for a tiny fraction of that, hence why hundreds of teams each year run 25 chain or HTD belts without any failures. 35 chain may not be a bad choice, but I think nearly any robotics team who can keep sprockets in line with each other and chain in reasonable tension can handle #25. It's really not as finicky as people make it out to be. If you can mill exact centers, 15mm belts are a good solution; I haven't personally heard of any failures of wide belts yet.
I certainly wouldn't say that either #25 or 15mm belts are bad solutions; 3061 had used both while I was on the team.

That said, I've had much more success running #35 than #25 or belts - every year that we've had belts or #25 we've required milled floating or slot tensioners to keep everything nice and tight.

I would agree that belt failures are very, very rare - I've personally never even heard of a belt snapping. However, belt slippage is something that happens very commonly to younger teams due to a lack of proper tensioning or miscalculated center distances.

Perhaps robust was the wrong word; maybe I was looking for foolproof? IMO anyways, it's much much harder to mess up #35. It could be that with the newer solutions that have come out, like versablocks, belt tensioning is easier than it was in past years.