Is there anything we should be keeping an eye out with regards to:
the Fitness Level
the Belt tightness numbers?
From reading other topics it seems that a a higher fitness number is better? (With a very low number the software actually seems to point it out, like in this other topic: Calibration Issues Maslow 4: Calibration Fitness Too Low ). My fitness level after a recent calibration was .56
And after rewinding belts, I get this set of four numbers. They numbers seem to correlate to the length the belts were extended before rewinding: (see photo).
The suggested frame dimensions that should be entered are from anchor to anchor right(as opposed to frame corners)?
Is there anything we should be keeping an eye out with regards to:
the Fitness Level
the Belt tightness numbers?
From reading other topics it seems that a a higher fitness number is better?
yes
My fitness level after a recent calibration was .56
I think the warning is .5
And after rewinding belts, I get this set of four numbers. They numbers seem to correlate to the length the belts were extended before rewinding: (see photo).
These numbers are the length the machine thought the belts were at the time that
it stalled out and resets the length to zero.
If you retract, extend, retract, the numbers should all be near zero. They only
match the length they were extended if you rebooted just before retracting.
The suggested frame dimensions that should be entered are from anchor to anchor right(as opposed to frame corners)?
yes.
Where are the automatically saved callibration values/ reports saved to?
they are the Maslow_* values in the maslow.yaml file.
These are the x and y coordinates for each anchor (with the bottom left beinb
0,0 and the bottom right being x,0)
Ah, okay. So after retracting and extending the belts a couple of times now I see the nearer to zero numbers. That’s good then. If you notice the deviations in the two sets of numbers I noted below, is this pretty much to be expected?
And that the top belts consistently extend to about 8" less than the lower belts, is that of any concern? (I’m assuming the belts were cut to roughly the same size from the factory?) Could this be impacting my fitness score? Anything I could do to try to improve this score? (How quickly I start to toggle the belt ends for extension after the Extend function is engaged (or which belts I start with, shouldn’t effect the extensions right?)
Okay, good to know about the anchor points. Thats what I used in the calibration process. So at least that’s not a factor behind the low fitness score.
When the machine starts up, it has no idea where the belts are, so I believe it just assumes they are retracted. So the first time you retract all, it’s normal for the numbers to reflect the lengths the belts were extended.
Those numbers on the left side for the second retraction are a little higher than I like to see, but unless you are doing really precise work, they’re acceptable.
The added extension for the lower belts is normal. It’s to help with hanging the Maslow for upright (a.k.a. vertical) frames. I run a flat (horizontal) frame and I get that too, but it is harmless.
Okay, that’s helpful to know that those retraction numbers are still acceptable for most work.
And good to know I’m not the only one with lower belts extending more than the upper ones. That it has to do with assisting with a vertical frame orientation makes perfect sense! (I’m also using a horizontal frame.) Thanks.
One related issue I’m having, however, is that all 4 belts are consistently extending about 5” less that posted above. As a result, I can only get 3 belts hooked on the anchor points - one belt is about an inch short. I’ve tried about half a dozen retractions and extensions and tried the release tension function as well. The machine hasn’t been used other than for a couple of calibrations, so not sure what caused this. Wonder if anyone else has had a similar issue?
I do recall one of my diagonal measurements being 1/4" more than the other, but I will confirm. Do you think that amount might make a difference? If so I could perhaps make 2 new corner braces and relocate their anchor points closer. But I will start with the first suggestion in case that does the trick. Thanks!
I do recall one of my diagonal measurements being 1/4" more than the other,
but I will confirm. Do you think that amount might make a difference?
no, that should not be enough to be an issue, within an inch or so should be
fine.
the fact that it can reach 3 of the 4 at one time made me think it was racked,
if it’s feeding the same amount out to all of them, and one diagonal can reach,
the other should as well.
do a couple cycles of extend/retract and make sure that it’s working properly
(the numbers at the end of retraction all near zero), if it’s not registering
the belt movement properly, that could cause all sorts of grief.
When I saw this behavior, I reacted to it by increasing the size I reported by 150ish mm on each axis. Haven’t had an issue with belts reaching since I started doing that.
To be clear, mine wasn’t missing by a small amount that I thought could be attributed to my frame being non planar or non square.
Did you manually change the size of the frame in the settings? How much it extends the belts is driven by that number.
The software updates the frame size after calibrations, so you should only set it once, then the software will update as needed, if that makes sense. Don’t go back in and change the numbers unless you change the frame.
Okay, that’s good that I won’t need to make physical frame adjustments. Sounds good - let me adjust those numbers to reclaim that extra belt length. Fingers crossed no belt registration issues following the extend/ retract cycles!
Good to hear you were able to solve a similar issue by increasing the frame numbers. So you used about 150mm - is that about the amount of belt length you were short on?
I haven’t changed the frame size settings yet, but am planning to do so now. Do you mean that after a calibration the frame settings shouldn’t be adjusted again - without physically changing the frame as well?
Correct, once you have a good calibration, frame numbers should be left alone unless you alter the frame. Whenever you change the numbers, you have to recalibrate I believe. If anyone knows different, please chime in.
Although I did have a good calibration, I have an issue with the belt lengths being a bit too short. So I’ll need to make that frame size setting change to address that. But I do believe you’re right that I will have to recalibrate after that. (And hopefully, not again after that!)
Please note that this is a before calibration thing. If you have done a
successful calibration and the belts won’t extend far enough, there is a very
different problem and we need to get @bar involved.
Yes, a successful calibration was done already. It resulted in that low, but apparently acceptable fitness score that I had mentioned above. Since you and Ed are both echoing the same caution I will refrain from changing any frame size settings. I’ll wait till I hear more. Thanks guys.
Okay, that’s a sensible approach. Now, when your belts weren’t extending enough, was this prior to your calibration? Mine aren’t extending far enough anymore, after calibration.
