View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2010, 15:36
M. Mellott's Avatar
M. Mellott M. Mellott is offline
CAD God
AKA: Mike Mellott
FRC #3193 (Falco Tech), FRC #48 (Delphi E.L.I.T.E.), FTC #9980 (FMF)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Austintown, OH
Posts: 272
M. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud ofM. Mellott has much to be proud of
Re: pic: Belt Drive Chassis

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB987 View Post
One thing to consider regarding use of a single belt per side...if you do have a very rare belt failure your bot will basically be dead on the field while use of two belts per side still allows decent mobility should one belt fail on a given side. Good for you to consider using a belt though...987 switched 3 years ago to belts and loves them.
As you guys have some experience with these belt drives...

How does the belt drive handle high torque situations, such as a pushing contest vs. another robot? Can it handle a high-torque transmission setup?

Also, assuming the belt is inside rectangular tubing, how easy/difficult would it be to change a belt if you do have that rare belt failure? I can see pulling out the axles of the end wheels to wrap a belt around the pulley relatively easy, but the axle of your center wheel is also the output shaft of your transmission--seems very time consuming to change if you're in a playoff situation.

I think I too would go with 2 belts on each side--you would guarantee a solid 180-degree wrap on each pulley, plus the redundancy of multiple belts.
__________________
In the continuing battle between innovative engineering and the laws of physics...physics always wins.
Reply With Quote