Should a _used_ T-belt be looser or tighter than a B-belt?
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: St Louis, Missouri, USA
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Not to sound like some sort of professor wannabe but ... a p9201 reading of 2.7 on cam belt does not mean it has the same tension as a p9201 reading of 2.7 on balance belt. These two should really not be compared; but if you must as some sort of sanity check, you would (at least) have to factor in the differences in belt thickness (0.221 for a typical used cam belt and 0.316 for a typical used balance belt). With those two very different thicknesses and realizing the P9201 gets its deflection value in such a way that it includes the thickness of the belt you can start to see that belt thickness plays a big role in P9201 readings. Consequently; 2.7 on a cam belt does not equal 2.7 on a balancer belt....Bruce
PS...Please direct me to the FSM page with the 3.5 balance belt specification.
PS...Please direct me to the FSM page with the 3.5 balance belt specification.
#17
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia (Formerly: Sunnyvale, CA)
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Thanks Bruce -- i was hoping you'd see this and help clarify what's going on.
So: Do you think it is true that 4.0+-0.3 on the 9210 corresponds to 40 lbs, and 2.7+-0.3 corresponds to 37.5+-0.5 lbs on the T-Belt?
Still seems highly counterintuitive that such a small difference in absolute tension could result in such a large scale reading difference on the 9201 (40.0 -> 37.5 lbs = 6.25% tension difference, 4.0 -> 2.7 = 32.5% scale difference).
Has this been measured directly on a properly tensioned used T-belt using the 9201 and another device such as your 920X or the Krikit? Direct calibration in this way would seem to be the only way to know what the 9201 readings really mean...
So: Do you think it is true that 4.0+-0.3 on the 9210 corresponds to 40 lbs, and 2.7+-0.3 corresponds to 37.5+-0.5 lbs on the T-Belt?
Still seems highly counterintuitive that such a small difference in absolute tension could result in such a large scale reading difference on the 9201 (40.0 -> 37.5 lbs = 6.25% tension difference, 4.0 -> 2.7 = 32.5% scale difference).
Has this been measured directly on a properly tensioned used T-belt using the 9201 and another device such as your 920X or the Krikit? Direct calibration in this way would seem to be the only way to know what the 9201 readings really mean...
#18
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: St Louis, Missouri, USA
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
So: Do you think it is true that 4.0+-0.3 on the 9210 corresponds to 40 lbs, and 2.7+-0.3 corresponds to 37.5+-0.5 lbs on the T-Belt?
Still seems highly counterintuitive ....
Has this been measured directly on a properly tensioned used T-belt using the 9201 and another device such as your 920X or the Krikit?
Bruce