This post moved from here, given that thread was closed..
Understood, that's the constraint I'm attempting to navigate around here.
I wasn't suggesting a substantially longer belt, however if the same profile belt a few mm longer in length was more commonly available, that would be one alternate possibility and enable other improvements as below.
Price an availability -- IMHO the currently available Bando 106H belts are excessively priced, assuming that's what you're actually buying. I've seen some substitute belts attempting to be sold for bt3k saws which were a simple flat rubber belt of the same length but differing form factor relative to a Bando polyurethane H profile belt.
Ease of belt replacement -- adding a simple belt idler/tensioner would make belt changes simpler, remove the assumption of proper tension being achieved by the belt precision alone, and offer far better impact resistance of the belt in blade stall scenarios. This is prefaced on the assumption a longer belt (eg 112H or equivalent) being available.
Another possibility would be to machine an arbor/motor pully set for a more common belt profile, independent of whether an idler was used.
Understood, that's the constraint I'm attempting to navigate around here.
There is not room for a longer belt and idler pulley without totally re-engineering the saw.
Why would someone bother?
Ease of belt replacement -- adding a simple belt idler/tensioner would make belt changes simpler, remove the assumption of proper tension being achieved by the belt precision alone, and offer far better impact resistance of the belt in blade stall scenarios. This is prefaced on the assumption a longer belt (eg 112H or equivalent) being available.
Another possibility would be to machine an arbor/motor pully set for a more common belt profile, independent of whether an idler was used.
Comment