Go to Post To help keep the kids on top of their game, I remind them that the school board considers a grade of 97 an A , so we can lose 3% of the kids and still be considered excellent. - DonRotolo [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 19 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 03:50 PM
Cash4587's Avatar
Cash4587 Cash4587 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cooper Cash
FRC #4587 (Jersey Voltage)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 348
Cash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud of
Chain Tensioning

Okay, I have been trying to use 1114's method of not using chain tensioners. In their "Drivetrain Design" presentation it states if you use the biggest sprockets possible that you do not need to tension the chains IF the distance between the the centers of the two wheels is a multiple of the chain pitch. BUT, I have gone online and used some chain distance calculators (http://www.botlanta.org/converters/d.../sprocket.html and http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/chainlength.html) and when I put in a multiple of .375 for a center to center distance, it does not come up with an even number of chain links as 1114's presentation stated. Is this correct? Should I use what the calculators are giving me or what 1114 stated in their presentation? I emailed Karthik already and he forwarded the message to their design lead and I haven't got a response yet. I am very confused on which center to center distance to use. The calculators or 1114's concept of multiples of .375. Well If anyone can help, Thanks in advance!
__________________
Team 4587: Jersey Voltage - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 04:16 PM
DonRotolo's Avatar
DonRotolo DonRotolo is offline
One down, one to go.
FRC #0832
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 7,101
DonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

OK, let's imagine we have a chain that has a pitch of 0.375 inch. That means each link is .375 apart, as are teeth on a sprocket...but there are even and odd links (or 'innie' and 'outie' links). So really, a full "link" is 0.750. Get that?

So let's say you want an Integer (whole, not fractional) number of links. If we have a sufficiently large sprocket, we can say that:

1. The number of links on 1/2 of the sprocket is an integer (one lnk per tooth, right?)
2. If we imagine a point at the very top of the sprocket, it should coincide with the center of the sprocket. So for any chain going from top to top of two sprockets, if the centers are an Integer number of links apart, there must be an Integer number of links between the tops. And the bottoms.
3. If we have an integer for the sprocket half and an integer between the tops and bottoms, that all adds up to an Integer. See it?

I went to the first calculator and used 2 sprockets of 40 teeth each and a center distance of 37.5 inches. Using the above, I would expect 2 * 20 links on the sprockets and 100 links top and bottom, a total of 240 links...and that is what the calculator says it is. So the calculator seems to be working for me....
__________________

I am N2IRZ - What's your callsign?

Last edited by DonRotolo : 06-23-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 04:19 PM
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 815
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

In addition to what DonRotolo said, the guideline you're referring to doesn't work unless the two sprockets have the same number of teeth, like in a wheel to wheel connection. Are you looking at a chain that goes from a smaller sprocket on a gearbox to a larger sprocket on a wheel? If so, you can still use your center distance calculator to figure out a suitable center distance that gives a chain length that is a multiple of 0.750".

Last edited by Nemo : 06-23-2013 at 04:22 PM. Reason: worded incorrectly
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 04:55 PM
Cash4587's Avatar
Cash4587 Cash4587 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cooper Cash
FRC #4587 (Jersey Voltage)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 348
Cash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud of
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonRotolo View Post
OK, let's imagine we have a chain that has a pitch of 0.375 inch. That means each link is .375 apart, as are teeth on a sprocket...but there are even and odd links (or 'innie' and 'outie' links). So really, a full "link" is 0.750. Get that?

So let's say you want an Integer (whole, not fractional) number of links. If we have a sufficiently large sprocket, we can say that:

1. The number of links on 1/2 of the sprocket is an integer (one lnk per tooth, right?)
2. If we imagine a point at the very top of the sprocket, it should coincide with the center of the sprocket. So for any chain going from top to top of two sprockets, if the centers are an Integer number of links apart, there must be an Integer number of links between the tops. And the bottoms.
3. If we have an integer for the sprocket half and an integer between the tops and bottoms, that all adds up to an Integer. See it?

I went to the first calculator and used 2 sprockets of 40 teeth each and a center distance of 37.5 inches. Using the above, I would expect 2 * 20 links on the sprockets and 100 links top and bottom, a total of 240 links...and that is what the calculator says it is. So the calculator seems to be working for me....
Oh okay so it works for same sprocket size. I was looking at from gearbox (15t) to wheel (32t).
I get what you mean though. So if I were to use the .750 for "pitch" in the calculator the number of links needed would be accurate If I am using #35 chain if I am trying to not use tensioners?
__________________
Team 4587: Jersey Voltage - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 04:59 PM
Cash4587's Avatar
Cash4587 Cash4587 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cooper Cash
FRC #4587 (Jersey Voltage)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 348
Cash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud of
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
In addition to what DonRotolo said, the guideline you're referring to doesn't work unless the two sprockets have the same number of teeth, like in a wheel to wheel connection. Are you looking at a chain that goes from a smaller sprocket on a gearbox to a larger sprocket on a wheel? If so, you can still use your center distance calculator to figure out a suitable center distance that gives a chain length that is a multiple of 0.750".
Yes I am trying to figure out how not to use tensioners at all on the robot so I will need to figure out the correct center to center Distances for gearbox to wheel, gearbox to wheel and also wheel to wheel. I am just confused on the whole concept really. It was only a couple bullet points in 1114's presentation.
__________________
Team 4587: Jersey Voltage - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 05:19 PM
apples000's Avatar
apples000 apples000 is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 222
apples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant futureapples000 has a brilliant future
Re: Chain Tensioning

We don't tension chains either. We use the center to center calculator in inventor to give us a starting point, then as the chains stretch, we put spacers underneath our gearbox to tighten the chains. We played > 35 matches this year on the competition bot, and we never had to adjust, but after a weekend of driver practice, it helps to put some spacers under the gearbox. Try to keep the chain runs as short as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 05:28 PM
Cash4587's Avatar
Cash4587 Cash4587 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cooper Cash
FRC #4587 (Jersey Voltage)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 348
Cash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud ofCash4587 has much to be proud of
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by apples000 View Post
We don't tension chains either. We use the center to center calculator in inventor to give us a starting point, then as the chains stretch, we put spacers underneath our gearbox to tighten the chains. We played > 35 matches this year on the competition bot, and we never had to adjust, but after a weekend of driver practice, it helps to put some spacers under the gearbox. Try to keep the chain runs as short as possible.
Oh okay, Do you have any suggestions on how to do this concept well?
__________________
Team 4587: Jersey Voltage - Lead Technical Mentor, Drive Coach
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 06:59 PM
Pault's Avatar
Pault Pault is offline
Registered User
FRC #0246 (Overclocked)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 618
Pault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond reputePault has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

Here is a tool from Dr. Joe that you could use. We used it for our arm actuators* and did not experience any problems**. The interface is not beginner friendly though, and unless you figure how to use the goal seek feature in excel, you will be playing a game of guess and check to get a good distance.

Alternatively, you can use this tool from Paul Copioli. It is much more user friendly, but isn't as powerful as Dr. Joe's tool. Also, the only person who has confirmed it actually works (as far as I know) is Paul Copioli himself, but I personally would be inclined to trust him.

Or, if you are too macho for these wimpy excel sheets, Paul Copioli provides the actual formula he uses in the his calculator:
Quote:
# of Links = 2*CD+ N/2 +n/2 + [(N-n) / (2*PI)]2 / CD = 62.563

Round to nearest # of even links  L = 62 links

Recalculate CD in inches using following formula:

Pitch/8*{2*L N n + SQRT[(2*L N n )2 - 0.81*(N - n)2]}

CD = 4.429 but we are not done.

Add 0.012 for #35 Chain

Add 0.018 for #25 Chain  CD = 4.447
Source: http://www.fightingpi.org/Resources/...oli%20MSC.pptx

Not so macho now, huh .

*given that the c-c distance was only ~4in and we were using it at 8:00PM on bag and tag day, so we weren't that picky.

** except for that 1 time where a bolt head got into the path of the chain and the master link eventually snapped, but I doubt that this was a problem with our c-c distance.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2013, 08:39 PM
DonRotolo's Avatar
DonRotolo DonRotolo is offline
One down, one to go.
FRC #0832
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 7,101
DonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

OK, 15t and 32t, no problem.

If we assume a "long" chain, the wrap on each sprocket is about 50%, and the formula still works.

Let's assume a 'short' chain though, c-c around 4" maybe?

15t gets 7 links, not 7.5, because it doesn't wrap all the way around. YOU can calculate the exact number. If you don't know the geometry, try doing it graphically - draw it to scale on paper.

32t gets just a hair more than 16, call it 17.

7+17=24, a nice even number.

If we pick a distance as a multiple of 3.75, it would almost be perfect, except the chain is at a slight angle, so the chain needs to be a hair longer...or the c-c needs to be a bit shorter... than normal c-c. So if I pick 3.75", I'd go with 3.7 and accept a little looseness or 3.65 and struggle installing the chain.

Again, YOU can do the math to figure exactly how much longer 10 links will be at an angle of (need to figure that too...)

The whole point is, if you can do the math, it's just geometry and trigonmetry. If you can't, or need help, draw it out to scale on paper. (a 15t sprocket can be depicted with a (15*.375)/Pi diameter circle). Measure the angles or calculate them, both are perfectly acceptable methods. And, in your head, know the answer will be just a bit short of (N*.375), so if your method gives such a result, you can know you are spot on.
__________________

I am N2IRZ - What's your callsign?
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-01-2013, 09:07 AM
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,718
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Chain Tensioning

Team 1640 uses this calculator by our head mentor, which automatically finds the actual correct wrap around each sprocket (or pulley), and finds the closest correct (integer link) distance for any given input. Just put in your 2 tooth counts and a ballpark of what you want the C-C distance to be, and it'll spit back the true answer.

It's been great for us, though being swerve drive we don't use long chain runs very often. We've never had a C-C chain issue on our swerve modules in 4 years, and we've just shy of 90 matches this year to date. It also works perfectly for timing belts, which we have used over long distances.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-20-2014, 05:40 PM
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,645
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pault View Post
Here is a tool from Dr. Joe that you could use. We used it for our arm actuators* and did not experience any problems**. The interface is not beginner friendly though, and unless you figure how to use the goal seek feature in excel, you will be playing a game of guess and check to get a good distance.

Alternatively, you can use this tool from Paul Copioli. It is much more user friendly, but isn't as powerful as Dr. Joe's tool. Also, the only person who has confirmed it actually works (as far as I know) is Paul Copioli himself, but I personally would be inclined to trust him.

Or, if you are too macho for these wimpy excel sheets, Paul Copioli provides the actual formula he uses in the his calculator:

Source: http://www.fightingpi.org/Resources/...oli%20MSC.pptx

Not so macho now, huh .

*given that the c-c distance was only ~4in and we were using it at 8:00PM on bag and tag day, so we weren't that picky.

** except for that 1 time where a bolt head got into the path of the chain and the master link eventually snapped, but I doubt that this was a problem with our c-c distance.
So Paul suggests spacing out sprockets farther apart than exact C-C? Doesn't that really increase the bearing load?
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-21-2014, 11:21 AM
AdamHeard's Avatar
AdamHeard AdamHeard is offline
Lead Mentor
FRC #0973 (Greybots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atascadero
Posts: 5,625
AdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond reputeAdamHeard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to AdamHeard
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hill View Post
So Paul suggests spacing out sprockets farther apart than exact C-C? Doesn't that really increase the bearing load?
Not knowing the context in which he said that, I would assume at least part of this is to take up mechanical slop in the average team's system.

If you go exact c-c, you're actually going to be under that number by whatever slop exist in all the holes and shafts in the system.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-21-2014, 11:50 AM
Jared's Avatar
Jared Jared is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 603
Jared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond reputeJared has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
Not knowing the context in which he said that, I would assume at least part of this is to take up mechanical slop in the average team's system.

If you go exact c-c, you're actually going to be under that number by whatever slop exist in all the holes and shafts in the system.
In his spreadsheet calculator, he recommends adding .018" for #35 chain and .012" for #25 chain.

From my experience, the actual calculated C-C distances are exactly where you want the chain to be, but due to slop between the bearing and the frame, the hex shaft and the bearing, and the hex shaft and the hex bore in the sprocket, you can have a decent amount of slop that reduces the effective C-C distance.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-21-2014, 12:06 PM
Oblarg Oblarg is offline
Registered User
AKA: Eli Barnett
FRC #0449 (The Blair Robot Project)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,333
Oblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

You could always consider using belts. Much less headache that way, and they're more efficient/make less noise, to boot!
__________________
"Mmmmm, chain grease and aluminum shavings..."
"The breakfast of champions!"

Member, FRC Team 449: 2007-2010
Drive Mechanics Lead, FRC Team 449: 2009-2010
Alumnus/Technical Mentor, FRC Team 449: 2010-Present
Lead Technical Mentor, FRC Team 4464: 2012-2015
Technical Mentor, FRC Team 5830: 2015-2016
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-21-2014, 12:18 PM
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,645
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chain Tensioning

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg View Post
You could always consider using belts. Much less headache that way, and they're more efficient/make less noise, to boot!
My only real issue with belts is that they're thick. They take up a lot of valuable horizontal space on the robot that can be used for mounting electronics and such. Also, Vex doesn't (at least yet) have GT2 profiles for VersaPulleys (I'm absolutely addicted to the VersaHub). We could probably get them manufactured, but I'd rather use our machining resources for other stuff.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi