[asid61]

Originally Posted by Ari423

This looks really cool! I would very much like to see the CAD for it so I can get a closer look.

CAD is in the 2015 offseason release: https://workbench.grabcad.com/workbe...1Z2b-tQWAq3gUh
Look under CIMshift -> 101 to find this assembly.

Originally Posted by Basel A

Awfully difficult to tell from this view how possible it would be, but you could introduce more reduction using a planetary gearbox, which would also give you a larger shaft to work with for the ball shifting. Of course, that would increase the footprint substantially.

This is a planetary shifter, actually. You shift between just a 72:25 (?) reduction and a 72:25 x (60:20 + 1) double reduction, by tying the second planetary to the first one.

Originally Posted by Kevin Ainsworth

Cool stuff. Sometimes ideas that you decide are not feasible later get you thinking about other ways to do what you want. Our in wheel swerve design from 2014 got more attention than our coaxial from 2015, but was heavier, only a single speed, made speed feedback difficult but still everyone liked it better because it was different from the norm. I am now on the coaxial bandwagon since sensing wheel speed and shifting are very difficult with distributed swerve designs. Getting the motor power wires and the pneumatic lines for the shifter cylinder through the steering pivot without requiring steering limit stops would be an issue. Your designs have come a long way and its been fun watching them progress. Keep going and show us something revolutionary!!!

I can totally see that. Personally I did like your CIM-in-wheel, but aftermaking some of my own decided the weight and space weren't worth it.
Thank you!

Originally Posted by nathannfm

If you use a planitary you could shift like they do in hand drils by engaging or disengaging some of the ring gear.

See above. However, if I were to just disengage one set, the spread will be very low; I'll be moving from a ratio of 4:1 to 5:1, or 3:1 to 4:1 just because of the way planetaries work.