Belt Drive

[JChang]

This thread have some useful information. Maybe teams that used timing belt drive this year can add some more information on the OP's google doc?

[roystur44]

The Andy Mark KOP drive base for 2013 used belts. Take a look at the list of components and the CAD.

http://www.andymark.com/AM-KOP-2013-s/451.htm

We used the base and the kitbot on steroids tips and we had a excellent drive base. I like how the belts were center to center distance and the belts were self centering. The Andy Mark folks did a outstanding job designing the KOP drive base.

This is really helpful for developing belt drive: http://www.maxtorque.com/calctool/ce...nterstartx.asp

As long as you know the ratio you want and the distance between wheels, it'll tell you all the possible options. As long as the number is with .01" of your goal, you'll be fine (though it's better to be .01 under than .01 over). For a for-sure fit effect, couple this with a tensioning system, and you'll get a belt drive that'll never fail.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

This is really helpful for developing belt drive: http://www.maxtorque.com/calctool/ce...nterstartx.asp

As long as you know the ratio you want and the distance between wheels, it'll tell you all the possible options. As long as the number is with .01" of your goal, you'll be fine (though it's better to be .01 under than .01 over). For a for-sure fit effect, couple this with a tensioning system, and you'll get a belt drive that'll never fail.

I prefer the gates calculator as ti gives you more precision and is actually made by gates: http://first.gatesprograms.com/resources

For drive systems there are two ways of going: c-c and tensioning. Tensioning will give you perfect tension. On the other hand c-c can be a lot easier, as you don't have to make bearing blocks etc. If you do c-c you want to add a couple thou to the c-c to artificially tension the belts. Based on the length of the run somewhere between .003 and .008 thou extra seem adequate.

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

I prefer the gates calculator as ti gives you more precision and is actually made by gates: http://first.gatesprograms.com/resources

For drive systems there are two ways of going: c-c and tensioning. Tensioning will give you perfect tension. On the other hand c-c can be a lot easier, as you don't have to make bearing blocks etc. If you do c-c you want to add a couple thou to the c-c to artificially tension the belts. Based on the length of the run somewhere between .003 and .008 thou extra seem adequate.

Am I not using that calculator correctly, or are you only allowed to use whole numbers as the C-C distance?

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

Am I not using that calculator correctly, or are you only allowed to use whole numbers as the C-C distance?

Looks like it doesn't work for fractional C-C distances. I don't use the belt length calculator anyways, as I prefer to calculate C-C based on the pulleys and belt I want to use(Center Distance calculator). The gt2 belts are metric anyways so it is probably better to use the center distance calculator and then plug the metric center distance into CAD.

[Brian Selle]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

Am I not using that calculator correctly, or are you only allowed to use whole numbers as the C-C distance?

We use a program developed by the Gates belt company called Design IQ. It will calculate belt length for any C-C distance or vice versa.

A little more info in this post:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...46&postcount=2