View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-12-2010, 11:47
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,100
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Sprockets as Chain Tensioners?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
I doubt that a static tensioner has a negligible effect on efficiency.

If you've got a two stage spur gear reduction and a single chain run from the gearbox you're already down to 83% efficiency or so. If you then shove a block of plastic into the chain to tension it, it would seem you would be liable to lower efficiency quite a bit.

We have no data, but empirical evidence has suggested to us that our overall drivetrain design is noticeably more efficient than the average drive similar to ours in terms of same number and type of motors, similar gear reductions, top speeds, and wheel type/friction.
If I may, I have a couple of questions, Cory.

I infer that you do not use static tensioners, is that correct? If so, do you use rolling tensioners, floating-sprocket tensioners, or no tensioners at all?

When you are comparing the performance of your drivetrain design to other drivetrains similar to yours, is "similar" limited to designs which use static tensioners (but are similar in all the other ways you mentioned), or does it also include designs that use the same tensioner design as yours?