Possible to extend output shaft on WCP Gearbox?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by joeyxylophone

Thank you for the response, Asid. Our team does not actually have a functional lathe at the moment, so I'd rather try to find a pre-made solution. I am using 1.5" thick Colson wheels, and 30mm of pulley thickness total, and it does not fit on the part I downloaded. Does the actual shaft come longer than represented in the CAD?

You should be able to make an output shaft for this gearbox with just a piece of hex or Thunderhex stock. However, you will need to replace the 1/2" round bearing on the motor plate with a 1/2" hex or Thunderhex bearing, and add some method of stopping the shaft from sliding out (shaft collar or a bolt+washer in the end of the shaft).

[J_B_Wood]

Asid: I'm a little weary of using 9mm belts to transmit power to the outer wheels, but it would give me plenty of space. Is there any risk of the belts breaking if I go down a size? I could try smaller wheels, that seems like a pretty elegant solution.

[InFlight]

Originally Posted by joeyxylophone

Asid: I'm a little weary of using 9mm belts to transmit power to the outer wheels, but it would give me plenty of space. Is there any risk of the belts breaking if I go down a size? I could try smaller wheels, that seems like a pretty elegant solution.

Assuming 5M HTD Belt; the Tensile Strength of the 9mm width belt is around 780 lbs. Provided you use reasonably sized pulleys and don't over tension it, 9 mm belt should be fine in this application.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by InFlight

Assuming 5M HTD Belt; the Tensile Strength of the 9mm width belt is around 780 lbs. Provided you use reasonably sized pulleys and don't over tension it, 9 mm belt should be fine in this application.

You can definitely screw this up, and several teams have had failures using 9mm belts and 24T or smaller pulleys in the drivetrain. If you're not sure I really would go 15mm.

That this gearbox doesn't fit two 15mm pulleys is one of the reasons I haven't used it. It's a lot of space to ask for, true.

[InFlight]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You can definitely screw this up, and several teams have had failures using 9mm belts and 24T or smaller pulleys in the drivetrain. If you're not sure I really would go 15mm.

That this gearbox doesn't fit two 15mm pulleys is one of the reasons I haven't used it. It's a lot of space to ask for, true.

Use of small pulleys really decreases the torque rating of these belt drives. Compared to a 36T pulley a 24T is about a 53% reduction in capability, while a 22T is down to ~47%.

A 15 mm wide belt is 40% stronger than a 9 mm belt. The extra strength may help some, but it is still poor compensation for a bad design.

For smaller pulley sizes, it would be better to go down to a 3M belt since you would have more teeth in contact and there would be less of torque rating decrement.

I would encourage everyone designing belt drives to take some time and understand the product, and engineering equations involved, before slapping it in to their design and hoping it will work.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by InFlight

Use of small pulleys really decreases the torque rating of these belt drives. Compared to a 36T pulley a 24T is about a 53% reduction in capability, while a 22T is down to ~47%.

A 15 mm wide belt is 40% stronger than a 9 mm belt. The extra strength may help some, but it is still poor compensation for a bad design.

How is going to a 40% stronger belt "compensation for a bad design", but going to a 47% stronger pulley size the proper decision? They seem to both fix the problem about the same, it's just horizontal space versus vertical space which is design dependent.

I've built several belt drives - 15mm wide belts and 24T pulleys on a WCD with 4-6" wheels have been completely issue free for us. 9mm/24T has not treated us as well. I don't see this as a bad design decision to use wider belts when we don't have the clearance for bigger pulleys.

Definitely look at the formulas and understand the rating for each belt - and then also remember that the resources specified by the manufacturer are generally for machines with 20x the run time of the average FRC robot, so you can go a bit closer on the safety margin than you might expect.

[InFlight]

You have a Design choice of v belts, synchronous belt, poly cord, and chain.

Using 5M HTD belt on small pulleys with only 12 teeth engaged and the small 1.5" turning diameter is not the intended or recommend use. The fact that you broke 9mm wide belts, suggests you probably were just getting by with 15mm belt with very little margin.

These HTD belts have some elasticity which reduces the effective number of teeth in mesh on the pulley. This effect is magnified when the number of total teeth is under 30.

Going to a 3M belt would provide additional margin at a given pulley diameter, as there would be more teeth engaged.

[Deke]

Originally Posted by InFlight

You have a Design choice of v belts, synchronous belt, poly cord, and chain.

Using 5M HTD belt on small pulleys with only 12 teeth engaged and the small 1.5" turning diameter is not the intended or recommend use. The fact that you broke 9mm wide belts, suggests you probably were just getting by with 15mm belt with very little margin.

These HTD belts have some elasticity which reduces the effective number of teeth in mesh on the pulley. This effect is magnified when the number of total teeth is under 30.

Going to a 3M belt would provide additional margin at a given pulley diameter, as there would be more teeth engaged.

SDP-SI recommends a minimum of 6 teeth engaged and has a correction factor for less engagement: http://www.sdp-si.com/D265/PDF/D265T146.pdf

Going to 3mm belt has a significant reduction in strength. Belts are recommended to be used at 1/15 of their breaking strength (http://www.sdp-si.com/D265/HTML/D265T042.html)

3mm HTD breaking strength http://www.sdp-si.com/D265/PDF/D265P1023.pdf
6mm = 213 lbs.
9mm = 320 lbs.

5mm HTD breaking strength http://www.sdp-si.com/D265/PDF/D265P1027.pdf
9mm = 640 lbs.
15mm = 1068 lbs.

3mm HTD working strength (1/15 of breaking strength)
6mm = 14.2 lbs.
9mm = 21.3 lbs.

5mm HTD working strength
9mm = 42.6 lbs.
15mm = 71.2 lbs.

You can probably get away with more than their recommended 1/15th reserve, but that would require some testing and development.

[InFlight]

The Problem with FRC usage (except 2015) is you will eventually get into some form of low speed, high torque pushing contest.

Assuming a 120 robot with bumpers and a battery weight, you could assume around 35 pounds of normal force per wheel (w/ four in contact). Assuming a coefficient of traction equal to 1, that would provide a traction limit force of 35pounds. With eight inch tires, that's a traction torque limit of 140 in*lbs

A two CIM drive shifted to a low speed ratio of 24:1 has a stall torque much higher than this per wheel. Thus the wheel traction becomes limiting factor rather than the motor torque in most cases.

A 24T Pulley (PD of 1.5") has a resulting belt tension of

Ftension = T/r = (140 in*lbs)/0.75in = 187 lbs.

The 140 in*lb torque value is way over the recommended limit for a 24T Pulley for either 9MM (36.9 in*lbs) or 15 MM (70.7in*lbs). In a very defense game you could potentially break either belt width.

Larger pulleys have higher torque limits, and lower resulting belt tension.

[Deke]

If you run those calculations with the kit drive train pulley sizes and wheel diameters, does a 9mm or 15mm belt meet the strength requirements? Is pulley size the only way to get a drive system from failing?

What happens if all the weight of the robot rocks on two wheels? What happens if all the weight of the robot rocks on one wheel?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

If you run those calculations with the kit drive train pulley sizes and wheel diameters, does a 9mm or 15mm belt meet the strength requirements? Is pulley size the only way to get a drive system from failing?

What happens if all the weight of the robot rocks on two wheels? What happens if all the weight of the robot rocks on one wheel?

The ratings are for a maximum recommended load over a long life, not ultimate tensile strength, so the belts aren't going to snap the instant your robot tips on two wheels.

Dozens of teams have run 15mm wide belts on 24T and larger pulleys and 9mm wide belts on even larger pulleys. These aren't about to snap. 9mm belts on 24T pulleys are pushing it. Smaller pulleys can lead to failure in a drivetrain. Load ratings are conservative and for use cases that aren't like FRC - using them as gospel here isn't necessary, and it isn't a poor decision to go with what's worked for many teams for several seasons, really. We push the rated limits of 25 chain all the time too.

[Deke]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The ratings are for a maximum recommended load over a long life, not ultimate tensile strength, so the belts aren't going to snap the instant your robot tips on two wheels.

Agreed, the ratings are for 3,000 hours of use, where an frc bot would see 10-20 conservatively.

What about the 10th, 100th, or 1,000th time it rocks? The point is there is a lot of advice in this thread, it could be very helpful or not so helpful. Most of it is not fully quantified. Yes, increasing wheel diameter increases load on the belts. Yes, increasing pulley diameter decreases load on the belt. Yes, increasing belt width increases srength. Yes, increasing tooth engagement helps with power transmission. It's basic physics, but what is the design point? How much load is the difference between a belt breaking or lasting? What tooth engagement is necessary? Taking a look at the numbers can be very helpful in understand the failure modes.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Dozens of teams have run 15mm wide belts on 24T and larger pulleys and 9mm wide belts on even larger pulleys. These aren't about to snap. 9mm belts on 24T pulleys are pushing it. Smaller pulleys can lead to failure in a drivetrain. Load ratings are conservative and for use cases that aren't like FRC - using them as gospel here isn't necessary, and it isn't a poor decision to go with what's worked for many teams for several seasons, really. We push the rated limits of 25 chain all the time too.

Define pushing it, what does that correlate to? When does it become an acceptable FRC design and the requirements it is held to?

How do you quantify a 24t pulley 15mm setup: What size wheels? What power input from the gearbox? That can be very helpful information to say we loaded our belts to X pounds and didn't see a a failure.

[Marcow]

Originally Posted by joeyxylophone

Asid: I'm a little weary of using 9mm belts to transmit power to the outer wheels, but it would give me plenty of space. Is there any risk of the belts breaking if I go down a size? I could try smaller wheels, that seems like a pretty elegant solution.

9mm belts are great, but as Chris said can easily get messed up if you're not sure what you're doing. We ran a very successful 6wd where the middle wheel used a 15mm pully that held two 9mm belts going to the outer wheels. Its just another option. If it doesn't feel safe to you, stick with the 15!

[J_B_Wood]

Originally Posted by Knufire

You should be able to make an output shaft for this gearbox with just a piece of hex or Thunderhex stock. However, you will need to replace the 1/2" round bearing on the motor plate with a 1/2" hex or Thunderhex bearing, and add some method of stopping the shaft from sliding out (shaft collar or a bolt+washer in the end of the shaft).

Just figured out how to quote. That's neat. And this seems like a pretty good solution, I will try it if I can't find a fix within the stock gearbox.