56mm Banebot problems @ Championship

[DonRotolo]

Going in the other direction: We saw very minor deformation of the carrier plates, noticed only while we were installing the new ones BaneBots so generously supplied. The robot then went to three competitions (NJ, Buckeye & Championships) without any failures or problems. We even won 2 Motorola Quality awards, 'cause nuthin' broke.

We have four CIMs driving one transmission each. The ends of the shafts are supported. Each shaft has 2 sprockets, each driving one of the six 6" IFI 2" wide traction wheels, all on a Kitbot chassis (the middle wheel is driven redundantly by other trannies). Final speed was about 11.5 fps. We climbed every ramp, did not lose any pushing matches (but tied a few times) and played defense mostly.

Overall, we are very satisfoed with BaneBots and their products.

Don

[AdamHeard]

Whether or not you experienced problems, the banebots have been proven unreliable.

If I were designing a single speed drivetrain to run off of one, or two small CIMs I would use the AndyMark single speed gearbox.

Not only is it cheaper (when running two CIMs), it is lighter and much more versatile. It can run a Big CIM without any modifactions and with a little ingenuity, it can be modified to run 3 or 4 of the following motors; Big CIM, small CIM and fischer price in the AM planetary.

For $98 and 2.91 lbs, I don't understand why ANYONE would choose the banebots over the AM planetary.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Whether or not you experienced problems, the banebots have been proven unreliable.

I have to disagree that the banebots have "been proven unreliable". Sure... with the original carrier plates there was a flaw. It was a very frustrating flaw. Believe me... we had four of the transmissions and wrecked them three weeks into build, and they failed in a very frustrating manner. Once we put the new carrier plates in, however... zero problems through two regionals.

This, by and large, has been the experience of the vast majority of teams using the BB 56mm trannies. The ability to use the trannies as direct drive to the wheels, as opposed to chain drive, actually makes them MORE reliable in the context of an overall drivetrain solution than many of the KOP solutions we have used in the past.

Perhaps even more important is that Banebots, the company, has been PROVEN to be reliable and to stand behind their product, even at considerable expense.

I will definitely be buying from Banebots and using their products in the future.

Jason

[ZZII 527]

I think it would be worthwhile, now that the crisis of getting replacement carriers to hundreds of teams is over, for BaneBots to do a very serious case study (with FRC teams) of the problem. It seems like there have been mixed results the whole time, but if there were a particular set of conditions that consistently led to success or failure, these would be good to at least document.

I know Joe Johnson started on this during the build season, asking for feedback from teams that had problems, but I think now that the season is over, it could use a more thorough revisit and I think the teams that used BaneBots products, for better or for worse, would be glad to help.

Personally, I would like to see BaneBots return next year with an improved product. I like the planetary option for drive gearboxes for many of the reasons mentioned above. I bit my nails for two months, but in the end the four BaneBots gearboxes we used all survived (with some modifications that I would like to see made stock in next year's models).

[eugenebrooks]

We had the 56mm Banebot transmissions on our 6 wheel drive
robot, using the two motor adapters and 12:1 gear ratio.
We competed at three regionals and the nationals, with some
very aggressive defensive play at times.

We replaced the carrier plates and shafts with 4130 steel,
using a square drive for broach cost reasons, that we heat
treated in our shop and had no problems with our transmissions.
We also broke the transmissions in with no load, in both directions,
and then fully cleaned and lubed them prior to any hard use.

I think that Banebots needs to give some careful attention
to the details on the carrier plate and output shaft, and
these transmissions will be just fine for next year.

Eugene

[lynca]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Perhaps even more important is that Banebots, the company, has been PROVEN to be reliable and to stand behind their product, even at considerable expense.

I will definitely be buying from Banebots and using their products in the future.

The banebots have been Proven and in some ways they have a much wider selection and different sizes then most gearbox manufacturers. If FIRST wants to add another another company (gearbox) to the kit, that's great. However I think FIRST should continue to allow banebots gearboxes.

[AdamHeard]

If you can do it with a simple spur or sprocket reduction, or by using an Andymark product, avoid the banebots.

I guess you can say they are reliable enough. But the huge variances among them, and the fact that the AM products I've used have far fewer failures (if any), convince me to avoid them.

Really, it's a matter of doing something possibly more easily at first, at the risk of having to completely overhaul it later.