Gearing That Cannot Overcome Static Friction

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

If you have a transmission that shifts at the right points on the curve, your robot will have the best acceleration, pushing power, and top speed possible from what we are given to work with.

On the other hand, if you're slow to shift, or more precisely, if you can't go through a large spread of ratios quickly, you'll be spending too much time in neutral to be useful.

This is a bit of a problem with the DeWalt gearboxes, it seems. While the NBD actually shifts quite nicely (once the extra parts like the detent leaf spring and the clutch rod are removed), it takes too much time for a servo to work the action (and still have enough torque to move smoothly). It's also why a 6-speed based on (for example) 222's design might be a little tricky, because the locking grooves would be spending a disproportionate amount of their time in between gears.

If anyone's seen Volkswagen's new DSG gearbox, it addresses this issue by having two separate power paths, and alternating between them. This means that the left side is driving while the right is shifting (or already in gear and waiting to be engaged). When an upshift is commanded by the driver or engine computer, it just switches power paths. (If you wanted a downshift, and it's ready for an upshift, then there's an additional step, but it's still pretty fast for an automatic.)

It seems to me that to use these extra-high gears, you'd need to ensure that you shifted quickly in and out of them; they'd theoretically be useful for the high-speed dash at the end of a match, but only if you could accelerate quickly enough while running through the lower gears. The thing is, for a moderately efficient drivetrain and a 120 to 130 pound robot, you'd have to be gearing for something like 30 or 40 fps in order to be unable to move appreciably from a standing start (due to stall overcurrent). This means that in order to go that fast, you're probably going through so many ratios that the delay in shifting could represent a whole lot of coasting—in other words, you could have done the same job at a lower top speed, but equivalent average speed, with simpler gearing.

Also, 40 fps represents corner-to-corner dashes of less than 3 seconds, assuming prompt acceleration in low gear and fast shifts. Does the driver want to deal with that? I was quite happy to knock Sterilite boxes (and other robots) around on a wide-open field at 12 fps in 2003, but I'm told that gearing the 2004 robot for 16 fps in top gear made for a challenging test of skill for the driver. (This predates the current interpretations of the high-speed ramming rules. Things, especially in autonomous mode, were much more flexible at that point.)

[KenWittlief]

we dont know what the game will be this year, but high speed may not be what you need.

Remember a few years back, teams pulling two mobile goal platforms around with one robot - geared down to speeds like 6 inches per second, and lifting the goals in the air to get extra traction? Maybe thats what they are thinking - several gears to get very low speeds with super pushing power, and everything in between up to a normal 10 or 12 F/S?

Making a transmission that shifts quickly is part of the challenge.

One other thing Ive noticed - Ive yet to see a FIRST transmission that has a clutch, like a car does. Im sure they didnt have torque converters either, so how they get away with shifting under power, with no clutch, is beyond me!

I can do it with my car, by matching the engine rpms while I upshift - but that has taken years of practice to accomplish without mashing the gears.

[Andrew Blair]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

we dont know what the game will be this year, but high speed may not be what you need.

Remember a few years back, teams pulling two mobile goal platforms around with one robot - geared down to speeds like 6 inches per second, and lifting the goals in the air to get extra traction? Maybe thats what they are thinking - several gears to get very low speeds with super pushing power, and everything in between up to a normal 10 or 12 F/S?

Making a transmission that shifts quickly is part of the challenge.

One other thing Ive noticed - Ive yet to see a FIRST transmission that has a clutch, like a car does. Im sure they didnt have torque converters either, so how they get away with shifting under power, with no clutch, is beyond me!

I can do it with my car, by matching the engine rpms while I upshift - but that has taken years of practice to accomplish without mashing the gears.

Actually Ken, CIA had a clutched transmission a few years back. There was a double sided rubber disk that acted as a clutch, and it engaged one of two transmission stages. It was very smooth. No grindy noises at all.

As far as 40 ft/sec goes, I would say it could only realistically be used on a field like this past years: flat and open. But it would be wild to watch.

As far as keeping it out of neutral, perhaps a sacrifice to a finer tooth gear? you could more easily aquire .25" wide gears, and 222's ball shifter could be used effectively. especially if it was activated by a motor & lead screw, or other fast actuator. Perhaps you could even use helical? With respect to gearboxes we've had in the past, even though they were built badly, with awful tolerances and extreme loads, Boston Gear 1/4", I think 24 or 28 DP helical's stood up wonderfully.

An 1/8" or 3/16" ball could travel 1/4" quite quickly, and if you put some sort of lateral spring allowance into the shifter, the balls would *pop* between gears.

[Dick Linn]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

... HP is a function of torque and RPM -Im not sure off the top of my head where the max HP point is on the curve...

Max power is right at half the maximum RPM on these DC motors. Power is Torque x RPM. In the attached picture, power is "inside the box" if you will. At any other point on the chart, the resulting box will be rectangular and thus have less area (less power). Maximum efficiency is at somewhat higher RPM. Ideally, you want to have the motor working at somewhere between 20% to 50% of maximum torque to keep the motor happy.

[Ken, are you still using globe motors soaked in liquid hydrogen? ]

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The thing is, for a moderately efficient drivetrain and a 120 to 130 pound robot, you'd have to be gearing for something like 30 or 40 fps in order to be unable to move appreciably from a standing start (due to stall overcurrent).

This is what I've been curious about and why I was interested in learning if anyone had any practical knowledge about how greatly the torque required to start moving varied from that required to keep moving for a typical drivetrain.

I'm trying to adapt a COTS product for FIRST use and so I've just been poking around to see what range of performance I can get from it to see if it's worth the investment.