View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 31-01-2008, 16:46
wireties's Avatar
wireties wireties is offline
Principal Engineer
AKA: Keith Buchanan
FRC #1296 (Full Metal Jackets)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,169
wireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond reputewireties has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to wireties
Re: toughbox gear/shaft slippage

OK, I reckon we'll move on. And I understand that you get what you pay for, however the transmissions are anything but free. But we are talking about semi-ridiculous machining tolerances. It is not even close. It seems counter-intuitive that this is 'OK'. Any slippage at all with a new mechanism will accelerate the wear on the surfaces, correct? Its akin to using the wrong size wrench on a bolt.

We have the capabilities to make new shafts but its a lot of mill and lathe time we'd rather spend on other things. The purpose of the query was to see if it mattered enough to try and fix it. Thanks for the all the replies. One team wrote "would be of concern if you were running at very high loads that you were rapidly reversing", the default code (which we are not using) will reverse the robot very quickly and most robots are working with nearly the same load (<140lbs on X wheels) so I'm not sure I get the point. It seems to me that this gear should not be loose. It does not cost anymore to make something the correct size (within reason).