VEXPro 2014 Product Initial Impressions

[T^2]

There's been a lot of moaning and groaning about IFI's poor customer service (for good reason, as my team has experienced), but let's leave that for another thread. I'd like to talk about the technical aspects of the new products, and ask for others' input on them. My first impressions are below.



VersaPlanetary Gearboxes

An extremely good product, made even better. VEXPro has added a new gear ratio (7:1) and plastic piloting plates for each type of motor.

Like: The new piloting plates are excellent. With the removal of the first internal bearing, the motor shaft is no longer overconstrained.

Dislike: Still no official support for CIM and Mini-CIM integration. The new plates make using those motors easier, but proper use still requires a few machining steps. Here's a hint: make the motor plate mount holes rest on a true 2-inch bolt circle. Also, there should be labeling stickers for combinations of 7:1 stages. Simply reusing last year's stickers seems a bit lazy.


Hex Shaft

Much better straightness tolerance than last year. Of the six 3-ft shafts we received initially, two were within .020 of true, three were within .050, and one was above .100. (We measured the height of the center, with the ends resting on a flat surface.) From what I gather, the main difference is in the shipping method -- packing in a box this time around. For the future, I would like to see the shaft packed in a shipping tube. In addition, it would be nice if better extrusion methods could be investigated. Last year, WCP sold cold-finished shafts at a competitive price. Obviously, with the recent partnership, these are no longer available on the market. I'd appreciate if VEXPro could bring them back.


VersaFrame Gussets

Like: These offer a lot of good frame options to teams. The design of these was well-considered.

Dislike: The rivet size is very, very weird. Beyond that, though, the biggest issue I have with these is price. When a T-gusset costs us $2.50 apiece, it's much more economical for us to have a sponsor laser us something similar. Such an option is not available for everyone.


Ball Shifters

The flagship VEXPro product, essentially. There have been a few modifications, but not enough.

Like: Last year's construction was robust, and this year's equally so. The gearboxes are still much lighter than anything else on the market, and personally, I greatly prefer the shifting method over dog or friction clutches.

Dislike: First off, the fact that the gearboxes still use the same encoder gear as last year comes as an incredible disappointment. Last time around, the press-fit was absolute trash, and required superglue on more than one occasion to retain properly. I expected better from a company that invites us to "Play with the Pros". This year we are using a different mounting method for our encoders, so the first thing I did upon opening the box was to toss those gears. If they've actually been improved, please correct me; nothing in the ball-shifter literature suggests that they have been.

The R6 and R8 internal bearings of the gearbox have been changed from shielded to rubber-sealed bearings. I suppose the idea is to protect from grease. This would be fine, if they were actually sealed properly. The R8 bearings we received had a visible separation between the rubber and the outer race; I could peer inside the bearing housing.

Some of the hole tolerances are off; a few holes that were intended to be clearance holes needed some force to push screws through.

On the VEXPro website, the option to purchase a pneumatic shifting cylinder is separated from the option to purchase the base kit. I'm sure there could be legitimate reasons for this, but what I see is a blatant attempt to obfuscate realistic pricing data from the buyer. What a poor way to treat your customers. Please prove my accusations groundless.



That's enough from me. Of course, my team has tried but a few of the vast array of VEXPro products, and none of the materials have made it through a season. What are your impressions on the product line? In particular, I'm curious as to how well the new belts/pulleys and wheels work.

[Answer42]

Can't be sure of my source here. But I seem to recall someone from vex saying they had made modifications to the encoder gear press fit to make it much more reliable. Might be worth looking into.

[jsasaki]

Originally Posted by T^2

On the VEXPro website, the option to purchase a pneumatic shifting cylinder is separated from the option to purchase the base kit. I'm sure there could be legitimate reasons for this, but what I see is a blatant attempt to obfuscate realistic pricing data from the buyer. What a poor way to treat your customers. Please prove my accusations groundless.

I wasn't going to comment on this post, until I saw this. Our team really took a hit on this. We ordered 4 of the 3 stage Ball Shifters and when we got our order, we found out that they had separated the Pancake cylinders out of the "base kit". I guess we ordered the Shifters thinking they would include one of the most important parts of making the shifter work, without the cylinder, the shifters are kind of useless. I thought it was a sneaky and unfair move on their part to raise prices. Maybe next time they could just raise the price of the entire thing without taking out critical parts of the kit.

[Jon Stratis]

Regarding the pancake cylinder... A lot of older teams have a lot of pneumatic parts sitting around their shops. It really wouldn't be surprising to want to save money by not getting the pancake shifter and instead making one of your existing cylinders work. I know when we ordered a ball shifter from VEX this year, I found it fairly clear on the website and ordered a pancake cylinder from the start.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I know when we ordered a ball shifter from VEX this year, I found it fairly clear on the website and ordered a pancake cylinder from the start.

I had the same experience. This seemed pretty obvious to me, and hardly a "blatant attempt to obfuscate" or "sneaky". Intimating that the people at IMI are trying to pull a fast one on us is worse than speculative, and hardly helpful.

Regarding product quality, there are certainly good and bad things to say about VexPro products, just like AndyMark and any other COTS stuff we use. Constructive feedback will probably help make better products in the long run; just look how far we've come in the last five years. But if companies like Apple can have problems with supply chain, quality, and customer satisfaction, with their decades of experience, armies of employees, and mountains of money, how can we expect perfection from a small company testing the waters with new products for the nichest of niche markets?

VexPro products have significantly raised the bar in the last two years, and their current issues are largely due to our overwhelming (and probably unpredictable) demand for their products. Keep that in mind please.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by T^2

VersaPlanetary Gearboxes

An extremely good product, made even better. VEXPro has added a new gear ratio (7:1) and plastic piloting plates for each type of motor.

Like: The new piloting plates are excellent. With the removal of the first internal bearing, the motor shaft is no longer overconstrained.

Dislike: Still no official support for CIM and Mini-CIM integration. The new plates make using those motors easier, but proper use still requires a few machining steps. Here's a hint: make the motor plate mount holes rest on a true 2-inch bolt circle. Also, there should be labeling stickers for combinations of 7:1 stages. Simply reusing last year's stickers seems a bit lazy.

We actually released both the 7:1 and the 9:1 this year.

We manufactured enough VP last year to make it through about 2 seasons worth of sales. As such, there was only so much we could change this year. The input housings, gear kits, output housings, and shafts we are using this year are exactly the same as last year. The hole pattern on the input housing was not intended to mount any CIM style motor. We figured teams would try to modify them so we put the 8mm bore with keyway because it was about the size we needed for the couplers anyway. Looking back, we could have just put the 2" pattern in the input housing mounting, but we used a 35mm square pattern instead. We will change this when we have to make more housings and add official support for CIM style motors after we do our own testing. The initial design intent for these gearboxes was only for the smaller motors and never for the larger motors. We have done 0 testing with CIMs and MiniCIMs so use at your own risk.

We had strong customer feedback in 2 other areas:

1. Motor mounting and efficiency. Although the gears are very efficient, in some cases the motor mounting was putting undo pressure on the motor shaft causing excessive efficiency loss. We solved this problem by making plastic motor mounts and eliminating the input bearing. This gives about a 20% increase in efficiency.

2. Custom configurations. Last year you could order 3:1 and 4:1 gearboxes with a CIM output shaft or 5:1 and 10:1 with a 1/2" hex. Many customers asked to be able to configure their own gearbox so we accommodated them this year.

In order to achieve these two requests we had to disassemble every gearbox in inventory, take out the input bearing, add the plastic motor mounts, and reconfigure the boxes to have the base kits. The stickers were already in the boxes and throwing them away seemed silly. I apologize for not adding the additional ratio stickers for the 7:1 and 9:1. We will do better next time.

Originally Posted by T^2

Hex Shaft

Much better straightness tolerance than last year. Of the six 3-ft shafts we received initially, two were within .020 of true, three were within .050, and one was above .100. (We measured the height of the center, with the ends resting on a flat surface.) From what I gather, the main difference is in the shipping method -- packing in a box this time around. For the future, I would like to see the shaft packed in a shipping tube. In addition, it would be nice if better extrusion methods could be investigated. Last year, WCP sold cold-finished shafts at a competitive price. Obviously, with the recent partnership, these are no longer available on the market. I'd appreciate if VEXPro could bring them back.

The 3' sections of hex stock are actually the left over inventory from last year. These extrusions are done at tolerances much tighter than any regular extruding house was willing to do. The tolerance on this shaft is tight, really tight. The 3' section did not have a flatness specification so some sections are less flat than I would like, but we did not put it on the drawing. Cold rolled hex shafts hex sizes are all over the place. Most times you need to file down the hex just to get it to fit. Our hex stock is all slightly undersized with a very tight tolerance so I am certain the extrusion method is sound. We also have released 18" versions that have a very tight flatness control, so if that is important to you, then I suggest you purchase those.

Originally Posted by T^2

VersaFrame Gussets

Like: These offer a lot of good frame options to teams. The design of these was well-considered.

Dislike: The rivet size is very, very weird. Beyond that, though, the biggest issue I have with these is price. When a T-gusset costs us $2.50 apiece, it's much more economical for us to have a sponsor laser us something similar. Such an option is not available for everyone.

The rivet size is a 5/32 rivet. It is a very common rivet size that many teams have been using for years. Also, it can be drilled out to 3/16 or 1/4 very easily.

Ask your sponsor how much they would charge someone for one T-gusset if they were not making it for free. Better yet, ask them how much it costs them. I think you will be surprised at the answer.

Originally Posted by T^2

Ball Shifters

The flagship VEXPro product, essentially. There have been a few modifications, but not enough.

Like: Last year's construction was robust, and this year's equally so. The gearboxes are still much lighter than anything else on the market, and personally, I greatly prefer the shifting method over dog or friction clutches.

Dislike: First off, the fact that the gearboxes still use the same encoder gear as last year comes as an incredible disappointment. Last time around, the press-fit was absolute trash, and required superglue on more than one occasion to retain properly. I expected better from a company that invites us to "Play with the Pros". This year we are using a different mounting method for our encoders, so the first thing I did upon opening the box was to toss those gears. If they've actually been improved, please correct me; nothing in the ball-shifter literature suggests that they have been.

The R6 and R8 internal bearings of the gearbox have been changed from shielded to rubber-sealed bearings. I suppose the idea is to protect from grease. This would be fine, if they were actually sealed properly. The R8 bearings we received had a visible separation between the rubber and the outer race; I could peer inside the bearing housing.

Regarding the encoders, all Ball shifter gearbox customers should have received an e-mail from us at the beginning of the season stating that if they are using the encoder gears and are dissatisfied with the performance, they can contact customer service and we will send them a new (gray color) encoder gear to replace it. This gear has a much tighter press fit into the shaft. Many customers do not use encoders with this gearbox so sending out a mass shipment to every customer was just not practical. These gears were late because we were not satisfied with the fit so we shipped the initial gearboxes with the gears we had in inventory to not hold up shipment. again, any ball shifter customer from last year or this year can contact VEX and request a replacement gear and we will send it completely free of charge.

We ran out of the shielded bearings and the rubber seal bearings are all we could get in time. FRC application does not require a rubber seal, only a shield so we felt these bearings were fine for the application.

Originally Posted by T^2

Ball Shifters

On the VEXPro website, the option to purchase a pneumatic shifting cylinder is separated from the option to purchase the base kit. I'm sure there could be legitimate reasons for this, but what I see is a blatant attempt to obfuscate realistic pricing data from the buyer. What a poor way to treat your customers. Please prove my accusations groundless.

Emphasis mine. Really? Then go buy a different gearbox if you feel this way. I know my PR people are going to be angry with me, but what the heck are you talking about? Have you even compared prices to other products? None of the competitors' products include cylinders. None of the competitors' baseline products include the more expensive aluminum gears. And the Ball shifter is less expensive than any of those products. Your facts are totally wrong. Totally wrong.

Did you even think that some people may not want the cylinder? This cylinder is $40 and is an unnecessary expense if you already have it. We clearly put on our web site that it was not included. With that said, there was a period during the inventory transition that our web site stated the ball shifters included the cylinder, because we included it last year. Customers that ordered at that time (during the order period for the old 2 CIM Ball Shifter) that have contacted us were sent the cylinders free of charge.

Originally Posted by T^2

That's enough from me. Of course, my team has tried but a few of the vast array of VEXPro products, and none of the materials have made it through a season. What are your impressions on the product line? In particular, I'm curious as to how well the new belts/pulleys and wheels work.

Are you stating that you purchased VEXpro items from us last year and they did not make it through last season? If so, then I am interested to know what products you are referring to so we can determine if that was normal wear or unusual circumstances.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Are you stating that you purchased VEXpro items from us last year and they did not make it through last season? If so, then I am interested to know what products you are referring to so we can determine if that was normal wear or unusual circumstances.

I believe T^2 was simply stating that our 2014 VP products have not seen a whole season yet. Besides the 2 stage ball-shifter output shaft loctite issue and the encoder gear issue last year, I believe 1678 was very happy with all the 2013 VP stuff we ordered. In fact, since Versaplanetary's are just THAT awesome, we will be reusing many of the housings from last year, and just buying different gear stages as needed.

Unfortunately, for certain applications, an 18" length of hex shaft isn't long enough for what we want to do. Of course, if we need the straightness, then we can make an alternative method work out. Out of curiosity, does holding a flatness tolerance on the 36" pose manufacturing difficulties, hence why it wasn't specified in the drawing? Just wondering, one thing on my wishlist for next year would definitely be 36" hex shaft with a better flatness tolerance, but I understand if this is economically unfeasible.

Also, I think it worth mentioning that I don't share T^2's view on the pancake cylinders. It was clear to me that the pancake cylinder was an add on, the reasoning behind this decision is solid, and did not seem underhanded in any way. Also, I make half the purchases for 1678, and I think everything VP/WCP does on their sites is clearly communicated and easy to navigate. Non-issue for me.

-Mike

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

.

Unfortunately, for certain applications, an 18" length of hex shaft isn't long enough for what we want to do. Of course, if we need the straightness, then we can make an alternative method work out. Out of curiosity, does holding a flatness tolerance on the 36" pose manufacturing difficulties, hence why it wasn't specified in the drawing? Just wondering, one thing on my wishlist for next year would definitely be 36" hex shaft with a better flatness tolerance, but I understand if this is economically unfeasible.
-Mike

Mike,

We just forgot it on the drawing. We were so focused on getting the Hex right, we didn't even think about specifying a flatness or straightness. Like I said before, the 3' shafts we had in stock were the remaining shafts from last year's purchase. Our new drawing has the straightness specified for our new purchase order. I am certain our supplier will push back on the straightness requirement for the 3/8" shaft, but at least the specification will make them pay attention to it.

Paul

[cadandcookies]

My team is absolutely in love with the VersaWheel DT-- I've never seen our wheel assemblies go together so quickly. Can't wait to see them in action.

As a team that ordered almost all of our drive train components from VexPro, I've been nothing but impressed by how everything "just works." We had some changeover in our drive train group, so products that minimize the amount of time they have to spend adapting and forcing hex shafts into round holes are much appreciated.

[jwfoss]

Over here on 558 we've been waiting for our VEX/WCP parts just like everyone else. Now that they have arrived, we couldn't be happier. In fact, VEX went above and beyond and drop shipped the hubs to us when we had ordered them from WCP.

The new 2014 VexPro Drive in a Day Chassis looks great, and has already gone under the mill for some modifications. It's exactly what we were looking for, and I really like the improvements from last years design.

In typical fashion we will be running colson wheels with dead axle hubs. This new iteration (based on the original design I worked with WCP on back in 2011-2012) are excellent and everything went together as expected today. We'll share some more images when the chassis is fully assembled.



Nothing quite like a fresh box of Colsons...

[Nirvash]

While we haven't purchased as much from VEX as other teams, what we have gotten has been great, Versaplanetarys are great and were very easy to assemble.

[waialua359]

Our team buys products from all of the better known COTS suppliers such as AM, VEXPro, BaneBots, McMaster, WC Products, Cross the Road Electronics, etc.

The one thing that stands out to me the most:

The presentation of the VEXPro/WC Products GearBoxes and how you choose your options.
Any person who is new to FRC can figure out what they "really" want by looking at the "Specs for Dummies" like me, especially giving FPS specs on the different size wheels.
In the past, we used our own experiments/experiences to judge what we wanted in terms of torque, speed, and drivetrain setup. We would change a variable or two based on past memory to determine how to adjust for a subsequent game.
It takes the guesswork out of us trying to figure out exactly what we want, saving us precious time and energy during an intense 6 week build season.

After doing 15 years of FRC, having more COTS supplier options is a whole lot better than the days of building your entire drivetrain/gearbox from scratch.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Emphasis mine. Really? Then go buy a different gearbox if you feel this way. I know my PR people are going to be angry with me, but what the heck are you talking about? Have you even compared prices to other products? None of the competitors' products include cylinders. None of the competitors' baseline products include the more expensive aluminum gears. And the Ball shifter is less expensive than any of those products. Your facts are totally wrong. Totally wrong.

Did you even think that some people may not want the cylinder? This cylinder is $40 and is an unnecessary expense if you already have it. We clearly put on our web site that it was not included.

I unfortunately don't have PR people of my own, so I can only try to be as honest as possible about my VEXPro experience. Yes, I did consider that some teams may already have the specific cylinders required for the gearboxes. However, I did not and do not know how great that number is. Frankly, I assumed it would be a small minority of teams who choose to purchase a shifter from VEXPro. I'm curious to know if I'm wrong about this.

To me, and to several other posters in this thread, it was fairly clear that we had to additionally purchase a cylinder. I don't think it was clear enough for everyone, though; oftentimes, what instructions are obvious to some can be missed by others. Example 1: the FRC game rules, and the numerous CD threads that follow Kickoff asking for clarification. Example 2: When my team purchased a Classmate laptop last year, the website came with an option to buy an AC adapter for the computer, in such a way as to imply that we needed to buy it separately. Eventually we found that this was not the case. Upon exploring the new VEXPro product pages, I got a similar feeling.

This, I believe, could be easily rectified with a few changes to the website's formatting. First, let the defaults for the parts that need purchase be what most teams actually buy. I'll use the 3-CIM shifter page as an example, because it has the most options. I notice that the default for "Base Options" isn't "none", but rather "3 CIM Ball Shifter Base Kit". Similarly, the default for cylinders should be for 1 cylinder and 1 fitting kit. Second, options should not be completely hidden. Currently, when I change the radio button from "Base Kit" to "Base Kit with WCD 3rd Stage", "3rd Stage Gear Kits" and "WCD Sprocket Options" appear. (I can't select "Base Kit with 3rd Stage" at the moment, but I assume that only "3rd Stage Gear Kits" will appear.) This is a bit confusing for customers who want a third stage. Having the "3rd Stage Gear Kits" and "WCD Sprocket Options" sections be grayed out, rather than invisible, when purchasing the base kit or "None" would be preferable. These are both small changes, but they would make my buying experience better.

Are you stating that you purchased VEXpro items from us last year and they did not make it through last season? If so, then I am interested to know what products you are referring to so we can determine if that was normal wear or unusual circumstances.

I was talking about this year's items, not last year's. I simply meant that no new parts have been in competition yet, hence the "initial impressions" thread.

[pfreivald]

I think it was as clear as it could reasonably be that the cylinder wasn't included.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think it was as clear as it could reasonably be that the cylinder wasn't included.

QFT