pic: Floating Zip Tie Chain Tensioner

[M. Mellott]

Greg & Jason,

Thank you for setting me straight on the copyright issue, and for your thorough discussions.

I've mentioned this discussion to "those I mentioned in my post" who use this practice, but they swear it would hold up in court...oh well...

[JesseK]

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?

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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).

[Zflash]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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?

Installation of a snap idle : Enough tension need only be applied to take out the slack of the chain. When the drive is in operation the Snapidle® will move back and forth on the chain periodically.
This is a qoute from the snap idle page I referenced earlier. While we did not have such a large difference between our sprockets in use your application may still work due to the snap idle's slight movement. It wouldn't hurt to give it a try. If you do let us know.