Silly chain question

@bar, why did you go with the #25 roller chain rather than #40 (aka bicycle chain)?

I would expect that bike chain would be cheaper due to being produced in larger quantities, and it should be possible to get small sprockets that fit the #40 chain.

Was there a specific reason to go smaller? (am I mistaken in my beliefs above for example) Or was it just a matter of going from the much heavier, multi-width chain you went to the smallest chain available?

It offers the most resolution and still offers the strength of a chain. It’s 2x’s the resolution you would get with a standard #40 bicycle chain.

I keep coming back to it would have more resolution with cable not chain. Though this creates a new issue of having to have a spindle long enough and tall enough to accommodate enough cable for full range of motion and attach to the motors. Would need to be custom made.

1 Like

how does the size of the links affect the resolution? you aren’t moving the
chain one link at a time, you are rotating the sprocket a small amount and
paying out part of a link.

yes, how the link comes off the sprocket is affected by the size of the link,
but how much of a difference does that make?

Because the drive sprocket can be smaller. The smaller the drive sprocket circumference the more resolution.
Also there is inherent slop in a chain. The closer the pins the less slop.

But I’m sure you’ll still doubt me. As you have a couple of times until someone else said the same thing. You’ve also shot down two suggestions that you then praised when someone else suggested it. So here’s a screen shot that says pretty much what I said.

Here’s the link to that page

And if I find it again I’ll link the video where a guy goes into detail about it, but I watched that video a few years ago.

1 Like

If it appears that I have been picking on you, my apologies, that is not the
case (I usually don’t pay attention to who says something when I respond)