Yeah.
True, would still need to be much thicker.
Lets not get offtopic though. 
1 Like
What’s up with the extra deep dogbone on the hanger profile?
Feel free to flag this if off topic, but 2 of my mounts are actually $22 to ship to UK, not $35.
3 Likes
Any shallower, and the screw length will need to be increased. Despite the extra material, it wouldn’t have much benefit as there is not enough material to add an extra set of positioning holes. So I figured, keeping everything as contained as possible within the circular boundary is the best and most aesthetically pleasing solution
Doesn’t Nexus Boards stock BN products in the UK?
2 Likes
Only helical gear drives as far as I can tell from the website
Ah, that’s for strain relief when the clamp is tightened
It’s wrong, I can refund the difference.
3 Likes
I appreciate the offer but I’m dead-set on producing my own, if for no reason other than the fun of DIYing it 
3 Likes
Some motors/circlips need up to 19mm.
3 Likes
Could you provide some examples? Is this common with 63mm motors?
There are a few examples if you search the forums.
I like the updates. Still need a way to adjust the belt tension though.
I used to be opposed to the idea of idlers, but as I started riding with more power, now I like them… It’s a lot easier to prevent skipping esp during heavy braking. Maybe make a longer idler version for rear mounting, and a shorter regular version for front of truck mounting?
2 Likes
Ah okay I’ll definitely increase the shaft clearance then. I really appreciate your detailed help on this.
Totally forgot to put the tension adjustment back in place, will sort that out haha.
I will consider making an idler version once I’ve produced a few of these and nailed down the design
1 Like
Couldn’t he just add in the hole that could be used to add the idler but could also be left alone if the idler isn’t needed? I’ve seen some creative idlers on here made from just bearings that would work for that use.
Although I suppose someone could always just drill the hole needed themselves but one little hole shouldn’t affect strength enough to not add it in
3 Likes
This is a great idea. A single mount that can work both ways.
The adjustable idler is really only needed if the motor is fixed. If the motor can be adjusted, then you can get away with just a hole for the idler.
vs
For the clamp - I think the range of adjustments is pretty low with the holes only going part of the way. Seems like they could be added here without much issue?
A few more thoughts:
- center to center distance should match whatever most mounts are (I think 62mm and 100mm) so belts that people already have will fit.
- Pulley combinations change the center to center distance, and to keep the belt sizes in the common lengths, you would need enough adjustment room to cover pretty much all combinations. Might be worth doing the math on all of that with a chart to help determine how much adjustment the motor needs and what belts that would work with
This was something I was doing for a pneumatic wheel mount. A 425 length belt would work with the pulley combinations I was thinking of using. There are a lot more sizes for kegel core wheels (32t-60t) plus 13t-20t motor.
- Thickness of the main mount should be at least 8mm IMO.
- Optional cross braces would be appreciated by many
- A fancy way of doing that would be to turn the brace into a grab handle
- It would likely save you a lot of headache to 3d print some ideas and see how everything installs and fits up before cutting aluminum.
1 Like
Great idea. As @jaykup says, either the idler is fixed and motor adjustable or vice versa. no need for both.
If I add holes there, it will allow the mount to be used in reverse (i.e. facing away from the centre of the board, not sure on the correct esk8 terminology here) but has no effect on the range of motion.
I’m considering reverting back to the BN style adjustable hole positions. Currently, the holes have a 22.5deg spacing. This realistically allows for three positions:
Low
Medium
High
At any further extremes, it would be impractical.
If I was to make the positioning more adjustable, it would mean increasing the diameter of the clamp/using smaller diameter screws/reducing the amount of material between each hole. None of these are really feasible. Increasing the clamp diameter to add a couple of extra positions would make it significantly larger without reducing the angle between holes that much. Using smaller diameter screws (M3) is dangerous, as is reducing the amount of material between holes UNLESS reverting to overlapping holes, which is already tried and tested.
Can’t you buy belts in 5-10mm length increments? And aren’t they relatively cheap? Would people building a new board really be so bothered as to avoid using this mount because they don’t already own the right belt? Or have I totally misinterpreted your point haha
If the wheel pulley is concentric to the hanger, and motor pulley concentric to the motor, surely the centre distance is constant? Could you help me understand this.
Nice idea but massive increase to cost. Trying to keep this as budget as possible. will see how I can reintegrate cross bracing.
Definitely, I actually printed this prototype before opening the thread with my second revision
2 Likes
I definitely could have worded this better. Using the same length belt, and changing pulley sizes will change the center to center distance. Having enough adjustment to use several common pulley combinations with one belt would be really convenient.
Needing only, say, 3 sizes of belts for all pulley combinations would also be really convenient. Doing the math on all combinations would allow you to work out the best adjustment distance to build into the mount that would satisfy that requirement.
It would also allow you to create a chart so people knew what belt to order for what combination and still have enough adjustment to keep it tight… and what other combinations they could try with the same belt.
1 Like