Belt vs. Chain

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Ether

The reasons were right there in the paper:

• Belt requires a more integrated design and precise manufacturing
• Wheels and belt must be assembled concurrently, unlike chain
• Belt requires more physical space because of the width differences for varying load capacities
• Chain drive is a known, proven system for transfer of power from the drive motors / transmissions to the drive wheels and between the wheels

Originally Posted by lemiant

I doubt 1 & 2 would be insurmountable for a team like 1114 (who I happen to know uses #25 chain), or 228. I'm not sure about #3, how much extra space are we talking here.

We've often talked about moving from chain to belts for our drivetrain. Most of our reasons for not making the switch have already been mentioned, but there's one big one missing, which is very specific to FRC. The lead time on the exact belts and sprockets we would want, imported into Canada, is about 2 weeks. We used belts on our elevator and roller claw this year, and acquiring the belts was the largest bottleneck. There's no way we'd sacrifice that much programming, practice and systems integration time on our drivetrain, for the marginal benefit that belts provide. Now, if we could find a way to reduce these lead times, belts would become a very attractive option.

Originally Posted by lemiant

And #4 has never scared a powerhouse out of doing anything.

Hardly. Number four keeps us from doing things all the time. We'll always take a solution that we know works 100% of the time over a solution where we have less confidence. Reliability is one of the keys to a successful FIRST season. We will not give it up for a new solution until we've proven the new solution is just as reliable as the established one.

As our founding mentor Stephen Rourke used to say, "The most effective solution is the simplest one that works".