![]() |
pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
How is this mounted to tubing? It looks like it's only using the bearing block bolts to hold the gearbox on.
Also, slight tidbit - the ability to use multiple pinion sizes is a design and feature of WCP gearboxes, not the VEX ones. The DS and SS are made by WCP. VEX and WCP are resellers of each other's products. Just clearing that up so that credit is given where credit is due. |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
What is the weight?
How thick are the side plates? Are you using a custom or COTS shifting shaft? If so, which one? How is this mounted? Are the cims acting as nuts for the standoffs? If so, consider changing that to just nuts or pemnuts. How are the shafts constrained? Are they hex turned to round? That's all for now. I can't tell much from this view, but it looks pretty good. |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Nice design. I'm a little worried about how the chains or belts will make it out of the gearbox and to other wheels. It looks like they would go right into the lower standoff tubes.
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
You are correct it is the DS and SS gearboxes that make the adjustable cim mounts but I am so used to using components from both that I tend to get them mixed up a lot. |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
It is this one: http://www.vexrobotics.com/217-3635.html The shafts are 3/8" hex shaft turned to 3/8" round but I might possibly use 1/2" hex and turn that to 3/8" because there isn't much material to constrain the shaft against the bearing with the 3/8" hex shaft. I am in fact using the cims as nuts but I am curious to know why there is a problem with this. Would it be a structural issue? |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
What do you guys think of the gear ratios? Are they appropriate gear ratios for a 3 cim gearbox?
And also, Sanddrag, I hadn't noticed that the pulleys would hit the standoffs but I just raised the location of the standoffs to give enough clearance for the pulleys. Thanks for noticing that! |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
3/8" hex turned to 3/8" will work fine. Look at the new Thunderhex usage examples to see how small a shoulder you can use. Bearings are very high precision, and you will have about a 1/32" shoulder on six points to constrain it. As stated above, it's a maintenance issue. If you lose a CIM somehow, then having to take off the gearbox and reassemble it is a no-no. |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
It's actually really difficult to just pull a CIM out of a gearbox without taking it apart. If you're using a 12 or 11 tooth pinion, the retaining ring on the CIM catches on the gear that the CIM pinion mates to. If you're using a 14 tooth gear, the pinion won't fit through the .755" hole for the CIM boss.
Also, if you did want to remove the CIM without disassembling the gearbox, I'd be willing to bet that the gearbox wouldn't just fall apart if one (or even all three) of the upper standoffs were removed. If you wanted to disassemble a gearbox without removing a CIM, you'll have to remove one of the mounting bolts from each CIM. From experience, the CIMs don't fall out of the gearbox when this happens. They can't go anywhere because the one remaining bolt hold the CIM boss in a tightly fitting hole. It looks like a solid design, and the gear ratios sound good too. |
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: pic: Low Profile Gearbox Front View
Quote:
While rare, it can happen so it's not a bad idea to design for CIM removal. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi