File talk:Mendel-m4-assembly-data-sheet.ods

Can Johnnyr explain a bit more the rationale for making the change from {splitting the X axis to get the Y axis} to {splitting the Z axis to get the Y axis}? (the comment says "more efficient" belt splitting).

It would seem to me (at least with the very wide Z belt that I obtained, from the UK supplier overseas via www.alliedelec.com) that the original way, I had a complete spare of the continuous Z belt (having split it in two). Taking that leftover continuous loop and breaking it to make a noncontinuous Y axis feels like a waste (compared to using the other half of the X axis), especially when the Z axis is at least $6 more expensive.

I'm asking (rather than just changing it) in case there was something particularly bad about splitting the BX belt, such as the remaining half being 6mm and it being a pain to trim off the 1mm in the belt splitter jig because of wire or something? Jkeegan 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the why the change, but I find it odd that the BOM list a 10mm belt to split for the X an Y and a 16mm for the Z, when RS do sell a 10mm version of the 990 belt [1]

The 990 10mm belt is a cheaper and still could be split to make either 2* Z belts or 1* Z and 1* Y. Of course you still have to split down the X belt as well since Mendel uses 5mm belts all round. Dps.lwk 20/05/2010