has anyone explored this as a replacement for chains

[azz7772]

http://www.gatesprograms.com/ptsavings/rollerchain

http://www.lianeng.com/gates-poly-chain-gt2.shtml

http://www.ontariobelting.com/ look under product tab then poly chain, says it will out perform roller chain

[Stonewall]

I think that a member on here that built an electric Attex is using this stuff...

Personally, I'd like to see a shaft drive of some sort implimented.

[FREQ42]

there is several problems with using polychain, Polly will require you to pull the axles every time the belt brakes. Polly may not brake under heavy load but will shear the cogs off the belt. I use both chain and Polly at my job. we only use Polly on light loads under 300lb-in. the heavier the load you use Polly on the wider the belt will be. we have a 1200lb mixer that uses a Polly belt on its paddle and it is 6" wide and is held under extream tension to keep from jumping cogs. the wider Polly belts get the thicker thy are which requires larger drive cog pulleys. in all I would not use it in my machine manly do to mud/dirt getting between the belt and pulley, when it dues the cog pulley will be compacted with dirt and will become smooth losing your ability to grab the belt. this happens all the time at my job, but using roller chain the dirt will be pushed threw and out of the way.

[lewis]

I agree with 42 on this. We also use them with similar results. I think the big down fall would be the constant starting/stopping and the belts jumping out of the belt pulley teeth. Also axle removal to change would be a down side.

[JRP3]

I think that a member on here that built an electric Attex is using this stuff...

I'm using a Gates Polychain on my motor to T-20 drive only. Because of the low end torque of the electric motor the snowmobile type clutch provided no benefit and would only waste energy so I removed it. First I tried chain but the high RPM's sprayed chain lube all over and I was getting a lot of chain stretch. The belt has neither issue, plus it's much quieter. I can't speak about it's use as an axle drive train, it seems as if it would be a nice mod but it would be quite expensive, and from what others here have said it might not work as well.

[mudNmallards]

I’ll chime in here because I’ve done numerous initial designs and retrofits with belts over chains.
In the same hp and torque range- no chain known to be manufactured will perform equal to its belt counterpart. Belts are stronger, last longer and overall substantially cheaper in the long run.
However- there are some applications that belts will not operate successfully in. The most obvious is extreme heat or when attachments have to be added to links. (furnaces, mercerizers, stretchers, paddles and the like) The next bad environment is where thick or tacky substances such as adhesives, mud, dirt, rocks ( as some have mentioned here above) can get between the cogs and belt. These are the external problems and really have no bearing on a belt or its properties its just that belts are not designed to deal with these things and they don’t. I’m doing a mine system right now and recommended chains on the conveyor drives over belts for this exact reason. The chain will allow fall through and crush small rocks- no belt ever will.
The internal machine is where you better be careful. As someone posted above, cogs will shear. They shear because of shock loading caused by improper tension. These belt systems are designed to run tight. (I mean where you can scratch them with a screwdriver and play “Stairway to Heaven” on them). In retrofits (new machines have this designed out of them so it’s a non issue) that were designed with chains- the bearings were not designed for the additional radial preload that belts require so they have to be upgraded also or they will start self destructing in short order. Also the sprockets are normally further out from the bearing (excess shaft) which results in warping of shafts( and all the balancing and breaking issues associated with that) so they have to be adjusted, made bigger or either have to have a truss bearing installed at the end to ease the stress.
The final issue is replacement. Depending on the design, many belt systems require substantial disassembly to replace belts. We get around this in industry by shrink wrapping 1 or 2 sets and sealing them with a heat gun and installing them at the same time and securing them out of the way.(I’ve had them in mines, steel mills for years covered in dirt, oil, sludge and associated crap- open the wrap and they are pristine clean) Then its just a matter of loosen and retighten. The disassembly issue will never be gotten around in some applications but given the weight of the total benefits should not be the show stopper.
In these AATV’s ( based on the many pictures and drawings I’ve seen here and the experience I’ve had using them) I would not use anything else but belts the way these drives are set up but with that said- if the machine was not originally designed for belts I don’t think retrofitting would be the best idea unless it was a total rebuild was done along with it and reengineer it for the additional stresses and loads the belts require over chains. I can say from experience that despite the manufacturer claims- if you just pull a chain off and put a belt on without factoring the bearings, shaft overhung load and structural stress, you are almost guaranteed to be begging for trouble. However, if the proper retrofitting is done first- you will never go back to a chain.