View Single Post
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-08-2008, 09:58
R.C.'s Avatar
R.C. R.C. is online now
2017... Oooh Kill em, Swerve!
AKA: Owner, WestCoast Products
FRC #1323 (MadTown Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Madera, CA
Posts: 2,179
R.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond reputeR.C. has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Floating Zip Tie Chain Tensioner

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Last night I took this into the preliminary CADs my team has for our '09 prototype bases, and we noticed an inherent flaw. Perhaps this is a flaw with all floating tensioners though.

If the two sprockets in the chain run are significantly different relative to their distance apart (e.g. 22-tooth to a 32-tooth, 6" apart) or their axes of rotation are not level with each other (e.g. transmission output shaft is higher than the wheel axle), this tensioner will have a tendendency to "drift" towards the smaller or lower sprocket and stay there without putting any tension on the chain. Is this correct or are we seeing something that isn't really true?
That is true but with this design it is not a problem. On the tops there are spots where you can drill holes and put springs in them so they don't lean one way or the other too much. We had to do this with the original floating tensioners, but they didn't have any spots to drill holes into them (a super hassle and a waste of time).
__________________
R.C.
Owner, WestCoast Products || Twitter
MadTown Robotics Team 1323

Last edited by R.C. : 19-08-2008 at 10:00.
Reply With Quote