View Single Post
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-11-2014, 09:50
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,634
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: One speed vs Two speed gearboxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rauhul Varma View Post
I would beg to differ on all accounts. You can definitely make light and small 2 speed gearboxes. Additionally the amount of air required to shift is extremely small, for example the volume of air required for a single shift on 192's 2014 gearbox was (9/16)^2 * pi * 3/8 = 0.373 in^3 of air, which is nothing as many tanks hold around 35 in^3 of air.
Even if some teams can find ways to minimize the additional costs in space, weight, and air doesn't mean they don't exist. By default, adding the additional gearing and shifting mechanisms will take up more space and weight than not having them. By default, triggering a pneumatic cylinder to shift will consume more air than not triggering that cylinder.

Heck, some teams might not even install a pneumatic system if it weren't for two-speed drivetrains.