618 belts

OK. So whomever packed your order did not ID the two belts?
 
wa5cab said:
OK. So whomever packed your order did not ID the two belts?
Click to expand...
Also, these are the correct positions:
Spindle-3L350
Motor to countershaft-3L210 (bench mount with the M6-20B countershaft asby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I would call and complain about that. It is OK for them to resell belts in their original OEM packaging but only if they also mark the package with the equivalent Clausing or Atlas part #. The customer should not have to figure out which part goes where.
 
I did note the fact that OP says no interest in link belting. I would appreciate a word as to why. Is it something more than the anachronistic use of modern belting on an old machine? From a strictly functional POV, link belting makes a lot of sense to me.

-Marty-
 
I put link belts on my Atlas. I'd do it again. Nothing modern about link belts, they used to be made of leather and rivets. I'd say the so-called endless rubber belt is the modern incarnation.
 
Marty Feldman said:
I did note the fact that OP says no interest in link belting. I would appreciate a word as to why. Is it something more than the anachronistic use of modern belting on an old machine? From a strictly functional POV, link belting makes a lot of sense to me.

-Marty-
Click to expand...
There are those that claim the links under certain conditions cause resonance and will affect surface finish. It does stand to reason. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a YouTube out there about it. Many purists have held this opinion for a long time.

I'm CERTAIN there are also those that will gladly chime in with "works fine for me" and they too would be right. Perhaps their conditions never manifest surface probs. Or maybe they have typical surface finishes where mere belt vibrations would blend into the background noise. Don't know.

I've never had a link belt on any machine and have generally preferred to disassemble the spindle and run a smooth belt. But I can hardly fault anyone for either stance.
 
Link belts are more expensive than V-belts, and will eventually wear the pulleys in such a way as to no longer properly fit the V-belt. And the original U.S. inventor of link belts flatly states not to run them in reverse. They were originally advertised as a means of saving money by making it unnecessary to stock a lot of different length V-belts. If a belt failed, the machine could be quickly returned to service and a replacement V-belt ordered. When the replacement arrived, it was to be installed at a convenient time and the links returned to inventory for the next time.
 
Marty Feldman said:
I did note the fact that OP says no interest in link belting. I would appreciate a word as to why. Is it something more than the anachronistic use of modern belting on an old machine? From a strictly functional POV, link belting makes a lot of sense to me.

-Marty-
Click to expand...
Yes, anachronistic. Or maybe just nostalgic. I've also seen link belts wear and reshape pulleys. Hope thats an acceptable reason.
 
I installed a link belt on my lathe. It is difficult to shift pulley positions at the headstock because the bottoms of the links drag on the casting. I plan to eventually go back to a ribbed V belt. I think that ribbed belts run smoother than normal v belts. Others may disagree.

Edit: I mean cogged, not ribbed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top