Re: Gearbox Maximum Torque
 

Norm,

Two important questions that might help us determine failure mode:

1. What was the diameter of the spindle you were winding onto?
2. Did you support the opposite end of the shaft with a bearing block, or was this a 150 lb cantilevered load on your gearbox?

Second question is the more important, as 150 lbs of side load on one of these gear boxes is probably going to translate through the output bearings and put a heck of a load on the final planetary stage.

Also, if only you'd have mentioned this while you were at Lone Star. I'd have loved to take a look at the thing in person. If only to determine whether I should continue to assume these gearboxes are really a vast improvement over the '07 ones my team had welded back together at GLR.

Re: Gearbox Maximum Torque
 

Thanks for all the insight, and apologies for latency in this response. I wanted to be sure I knew a little more before responding, but I haven't been able to pull more information or pictures up on/of our specific failure. The busted-box is in "a bag somewhere over there". Which, "there" they mean, I do not know.

The spindle was mounted directly on the gearbox output, but it was supported on the other side by a pillow block: A single plate held the gear box (4 mounting holes) and the pillow block (2 mounting holes).


I'd like to convert this thread into an "Idiots Guide to Torque" or a "Mentor's Guide to Teaching Torque", if possible. My vision of it is the following:
* A spread sheet similar to Dick Lynn's information for the N most commonly used gearboxes in FRC ((85 ft lbs for a P80)).
* A simple beam bending stress calculator, per Joe Johnson's suggestion, with perhaps 3 example gearboxes already entered. This will probably benefit from a picture of a gear with the important dimensions labeled.
* An explanation of when the simple beam calculator is appropriate, and pointers towards how to do it more accurately. Maybe this is where we mention the life cycle calculations?
* An explanation of how "how's" matter. For example, pictures of busted gears and how they failed. "Gears look like this? Too much side load!" "Gears look like that? Need more lube!" etc.

Thanks again, all, and I'll try to take pictures after ATL.

EDIT/PS:
When I teach a new topic at FRC, I usually give a 2-10 minute "whats up" to everyone, and then point 1 or 2 students in the right direction to dig deeper. If this resource could be architected similarly, that would be fantastic.

Re: Gearbox Maximum Torque
 

Here's another calculator that I've been using lately. It sounds like it's an online version of what's referenced in that document.

http://www.rushgears.com/Tech_Tools/horsepower.php

Re: Gearbox Maximum Torque
 

The last part of this statement, which I have placed in bold, is the most important part.

I hope everyone gets a chance to check out a P60 gearbox and see just what awesome little machines they are. I also hope they get a chance, at some point, to talk to the people at Banebots, who are committed to quality and customer service and stand behind their product 100%.

We've had BB gearboxes on our robots for years now, including a 26:1 P60 (which we modified to a 20:1 and then a 16:1 just by changing a few inexpensive parts) on this year's machine. The ONLY time a BB gearbox has ever failed us was when an overseas supplier sent insufficiently hardened output stages for use in the "Rack'n'Roll" KoP. Banebots responded to that problem by rush manufacturing replacement plates and shipping them -- for free -- to every FRC team whether they needed them or not. An unfortunate incident, perhaps, but one handled with class, grace, and an abundance of care for the customer. To my knowledge not a single one of the upgraded gearboxes failed. <Edit: I have been informed, by a most reliable source, that there were a few that did, due to a machining issue in the replacement parts.> And yet Banebots went and redesigned the entire thing into the P80 gearbox to make it even more durable.

The previous small gearboxes, manufactured overseas, were not of the same construction quality as the "Made in the USA" P60's, but still served us well in many applications including the Poof Ball shooter on our "Aim High" bot, which has outlasted two FP motors and is still happily firing Poof Balls about our shop these days. Yes, we took time to grease them, and no, we did not use the gearboxes for high impact loading or high-torque applications. Although we have a 256:1 on the shelf, I think 64:1 is the highest reduction we ever used.

Any gearbox will fail if you subject it to extremes of loading beyond its design specifications. For years Banebots made this very clear with their high reduction gearboxes, reminding customers that the highest gear reductions should be used more as a way to reduce speed, than a way to increase torque. It's probably a reminder worth putting back up on their website. And it's probably worth it for them to sacrifice a few gearboxes to a torque test and publishing that value, too. (Impact loading, as in an arm or large spinning mass suddenly reversing direction, would be a bit more difficult to measure.)

The good news is that they sell spare parts, and if you give them a call they should be able to tell you exactly what you need to get that P60 back up and running.

The bad news is that statements such as the first half of this quote are unfair to a company that has produced a solid, reliable line of small, low-cost gearboxes for robotics hobbyists for years. Some of their previous, less expensive gearboxes haven't been as pretty or as well made as the P60s are, but they worked, and worked well when used with respect for their small size and low cost. Banebots has stood behind their product, even at considerable expense, and their products have enabled us to build better robots than we could without them.

They deserve better than snide remarks.

Jason