Meshing Gears

[Travis Covington]

Although I will agree that meshing gears is an effective way to create a shifting gearbox, if reliability and consistency are a larger factor, then I would have to put my vote in for a shifting dog style tranny.

The benefits of the dogs are seen in a lot of real world applications, such as motorcycle transmissions and the like. Most motorcycles still use a clutch, where as most FIRST robots using a dog style tranny do not. The difference there is negligible, as most teams learn to back off on the joystick when they shift gears, but for the most part it is an insignificant factor for such low-torque applications. In alot of cases, motorcycles can be shifted without having to use the clutch.

While meshing gears works, there is the inherent wearing of the 'rouded' edge you folks are talking about that essentially helps ensure the gear is meshing. After long term use, these gear edges will see significant wear. The argument then follows, 'we won’t be using it THAT much on a FIRST robot, and so does the wear really matter?' I would probably say no. So overall, I say build what you are comfortable building. I know a lot of top teams use meshing gears, while other equally good top teams use dogs. I have not heard of many stories on either side where these transmissions fail in short term seasonal use.

Good luck either way...

Here is some motivation for you all... (Stock motorcycle tranny)

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Travis Covington

The benefits of the dogs are seen in a lot of real world applications

A few weeks ago in the machine shop we had the verticle bandsaw gearbox apart due to a broken roll pin and I was surprised to find that it uses dog style gears and shifter just like in your gearbox and the Technokats' gearbox, with the same three triangle-ish shape.

One way to look at this (that may sound really strange) is that a Technokat style shifter can be viewed as a really large pitch gear with three teeth. Cmparatively, the gears in a FIRST sliding gear shifting transmission are a far finer pitch that the dog, because they have more teeth for about the same diameter. And everyone knows it is easier to strip a finer pitch gear than a heavier pitch gear. Tada, explained. That was kind of whacko sounding, after all I made it up, but it is one way to look at it.

The first shifting robot transmission I ever saw was that of Team 60 in 2002. It shifted by sliding gears into one another. While it worked exceptionally well, I do have to say that looking at it closely in the pits, I found a lot of metal shavings in the bottom of it. But, Team 60 has been shifting for a while now and they are still sliding gears so it must be working, at least in the limited use as Travis pointed out.

But to look at it, the dog just seems more beefy and robust to me and that's why it gets my vote.

[Joe Johnson]

One think that I keep thinking about with all the mania for shift on the fly is that what we lack (in addition to a clutch) is mechanism to syncronize the gears (or dogs) that are meshing.

The reason we often hear such nasty grinding sounds from the shift the shifting gearboxes is that the gears or dogs that are trying to mesh are going at extremely different speeds.

I think I have noodled out a method provide this syncronization (or close enough syncing) with some clever software.

With luck I will get a chance to work on it this summer. Stay tuned...

If others have already done this, I would welcome some pointers.

Joe J.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

With luck I will get a chance to work on it this summer. Stay tuned...

Joe J.

Joe... Man,
Focus!
Dewalt Transmission white paper... then syncro-code.

JV

[Max Lobovsky]

There is another problem with sliding gears into each other that hasn't been mentioned here (well not exactly mentioned...). As said, it's a good way to strip your gears, but along with grinding the sides fo the gears as they engage, once they are partially engaged, All the force of the motor is being transferred via only part of the gear surface. You must have lower pitch gears than you might normally use in a non-shifting or dog-shifting transmission.

[team222badbrad]

I dont know much about meshing gears together while in motion. I can tell you how our 2004 transmission works though. Instead of meshing them while in motion we kept 3 different ratios constantly meshed and shifted between gears internally.

Here is my whitepaper:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pa...er&paperid=335

[Joe Johnson]

[quote=team222badbrad]I dont know much about meshing gears together while in motion. I can tell you how our 2004 transmission works though. Instead of meshing them while in motion we kept 3 different ratios constantly meshed and shifted between gears internally.

Here is my whitepaper:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/papers.php?s=&action=downloadpaper&paperid=335[/QUOTE]

Excellent white paper. Clear, concise. Well done.

Joe J.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by team222badbrad

I dont know much about meshing gears together while in motion. I can tell you how our 2004 transmission works though. Instead of meshing them while in motion we kept 3 different ratios constantly meshed and shifted between gears internally.

Here is my whitepaper:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pa...er&paperid=335

That is a really cool transmission. I see a potential issue with effeciency, so I would like to ask how well it worked in practice. Here is what I see:

1) The output gears appear to need to slide along the faces of the each other. Were the gears spaced such that they don't rub on each other, or did you just grease them to reduce the friction?

2) The non-engaged gears must rotate freely about the output shaft. Did the non-engaged ball bearings sufficiently reduce the friction between the gears and the shaft?

Just a final question: how was the overall efficiency?

I just want to say that this is really a very cool design that appears to be incredibly space efficient. Good job.

[team222badbrad]

Thanks for the comments.

The gears were not spaced apart. However we did grease/oil them. We greased them about once a regional.
The transmissions were sealed pretty well from leakage. They were not full of oil but if FIRST saw a little oil on the carpet the wouldnt like it... And yes our robot was uprighted several times and we never found any oil spots on the carpet

The non-engaged ball bearings didnt seem to cause much friction at all. The only time the ball bearings could accually enter the slots in the gears is when one hole is |- | upside down like this, so gravity can pull it out.
Even then |O| both the slots and the holes would have to do so at the same time. As soon as that would occur the ball bearings would just be forced back up in the shaft. I have easily pushed the robot along the floor when the robot is in neutral.

The transmissions are still working great! So far the robot's transmissions have been through 2 regionals, nationals, and 3 minis. We have only had to oil them and check set screws! Never even had to change a CIM motor!

The only drivetrain related problem we had this year was a shattered 4 wheel drive sprocket. Not a big deal considering we still made it up to the top platform with 3 wheel drive and it was just a practice round...

Next year we are going to make it even better!

www.tigertrons.com/2004/transmission222 Link includes Powerpoint,white paper, and Chiefdelphi Links.

[camtunkpa]

Just to fill in some gaps here and there:

1) Our design didn't use the balls in the shaft to create a ball bearing like assembly when the gears were not engaged.

2) Though simple in concept, these transmissions take a while to build for the first time (get prototyping!!!!).

3) Spring load your shifting device!!!! One thing I've seen with the designs is that everyone uses air or some sort of device to engage gears.....Air is good, but at the same time air along with a spring load is less harsh and more accurate at engaging the gears and will tend to solve SOME of the syncro. grindage. The spring load allows for error in shifting with no damage to your machine.

Happy Shifting!

[helly180]

Do you know where to get schematics for transmissions?

Originally Posted by FizMan

I'm pretty sure there's a thread aboot this somewhere, but me being on a break at work, don't have time to sift through the site.

Anyhow, lots of talk aboot dogs in transmissions letting you 'shift-on-the-fly'. What are the problems when it comes to meshing two gears directly?

______
 |  |
=== |
 | ===
 |  |
______
 
shift to:
______ 
 |  |
======
 |  |
 |  |
______

I hope you get the picture; it's a top-down shot of a simple system pushing one gear to align with a second. (the === are the gears, the | are the axles, and the _____ is the housing)

And is shifting like this not possible on the fly? Didn't that team with the 4 speed automatic transmission do it on the fly? (forgot the team name)

If there's already a thread like this, you can point me in the direction of it too if you'd rather (don't want to waste your time writing a post if the information is there)

Thanks for your help.