Custom Gearboxes

[Chowmaster4695]

Originally Posted by Mk.32

Minus drive gearboxes (since WCP WCD Gbs are so nice and basically the same thing I would build), I usually do custom gearboxes everywhere.

I just started with this team this year (2485) and apparently this is the team's first custom gb.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...17&postcount=5

This looks like a good first attempt at custom gearbox. Couple of things I am confused about here. It looks like the cim mounting holes are not easily accessible and theres just way too much reduction for your application. Also confused on why the plate does not contour the spacers and why there are such big bolts holding the whole thing together. Seems like your shafts will locate the gearbox well enough without gigantic bolts and the pocket seems a little off... and could be more aggressive...

[Mk.32]

Originally Posted by Chowmaster4695

This looks like a good first attempt at custom gearbox. Couple of things I am confused about here. It looks like the cim mounting holes are not easily accessible and theres just way too much reduction for your application. Also confused on why the plate does not contour the spacers and why there are such big bolts holding the whole thing together. Seems like your shafts will locate the gearbox well enough without gigantic bolts and the pocket seems a little off... and could be more aggressive...

The CIM mounting holes are decently accessible, hard to see in this photo.

How do you know there is to much reduction? If you read the thread in entirely I believe I commented on it was on the slow side, but worked beautifully.

We are using 1/4-20s to hold the gb together (pretty standard in FRC AM uses it a lot), since that's what we had and they were alum bolts so they weighed nothing compared to the steel ones. I am sure 10-32s would have worked fine but what we had is what we had.

Why does the pocketing have to contour the spacers? It got a little weird since we needed to throw in all the slots which is what bolts it to the robot. And honestly I didn't really care much in the terms of aesthetics; it could have been pocketed more heavily but the mentors on the team wanted to be on the safe side. And the weight difference would have been in the grams.

[Chowmaster4695]

Originally Posted by Mk.32

The CIM mounting holes are decently accessible, hard to see in this photo.

How do you know there is to much reduction? If you read the thread in entirely I believe I commented on it was on the slow side, but worked beautifully.

We are using 1/4-20s to hold the gb together (pretty standard in FRC AM uses it a lot), since that's what we had and they were alum bolts so they weighed nothing compared to the steel ones. I am sure 10-32s would have worked fine but what we had is what we had.

Why does the pocketing have to contour the spacers? It got a little weird since we needed to throw in all the slots which is what bolts it to the robot. And honestly I didn't really care much in the terms of aesthetics; it could have been pocketed more heavily but the mentors on the team wanted to be on the safe side. And the weight difference would have been in the grams.

I know its too much reduction because I have seen the application it is being used in and 2 mini cims is just overkill to move an intake up and down.

And for the rest of the comments, it seems like you know the things I said are the things that could be optimized and you should ask yourself can I do better? Why leave your designs unoptimized? When your design is optimized in weight , speed, and resources that's when your getting the most bang for your buck. Chow out