pic: New gearbox CAD

[sanddrag]

I'd bet you could get another pound out of it in those gears if you wanted to, but overall, nice work.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

What is the advantage over the toughbox?

I like the CIM mounts. That's a very compact way to do it.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

What is the advantage over the toughbox?

I like the CIM mounts. That's a very compact way to do it.

I guess It would be the weight savings.

I'm not really a fan of the same 4 bolts holding the gearbox together, the motors on and the gearbox to whatever structure it is mounted to. No matter what, that is going to make assembly and mounting a much bigger pain that it needs to be. I'll agree it cuts down on parts and weight, but I don't think it's worth it.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I'd bet you could get another pound out of it in those gears if you wanted to, but overall, nice work.

No, actually. The gears are heavily "dished" out on the other side, in order to keep those components to a single lathe process. There's practically no weight I can save by removing materials, only adding material.

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

What is the advantage over the toughbox?

I like the CIM mounts. That's a very compact way to do it.

The advantage it has over the toughbox is custom ratio, massively lighter, more stylish, more precise, and better bragging rights.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I guess It would be the weight savings.

I'm not really a fan of the same 4 bolts holding the gearbox together, the motors on and the gearbox to whatever structure it is mounted to. No matter what, that is going to make assembly and mounting a much bigger pain that it needs to be. I'll agree it cuts down on parts and weight, but I don't think it's worth it.

It would be a bit of a pain to assemble. However, depending on what kind of drive system that it would mate to, two of the mounting bolts may be countersunk. That would aid a bit in assembly.

[M. Mellott]

A straight-forward single-speed gearbox--simple in its mechanical design, but the weight savings and sideplate design make it very elegant...something defintely to brag about if this is on your robot!

And yes, "elegant" can be used to describe a gearbox...ask the Germans!!

[Triple B]

Craig,
I like it.
mike d

[Qbranch]

Originally Posted by M. Mellott

A straight-forward single-speed gearbox--simple in its mechanical design, but the weight savings and sideplate design make it very elegant...something defintely to brag about if this is on your robot

I second that. Very elegant, very nice design. If you use this gearbox... you should make a couple extra side plates and chrome plate them for explanation-to-judges purposes at regionals. We had a really cool frame system on our 2006 robot and did something similar... we had extra aluminum frame components that we polished to a high gloss shine for explanation purposes.

Everybody likes bling... even FIRST judges.

Great job!

-q

[Nica F.]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

that is going to make assembly and mounting a much bigger pain that it needs to be. I'll agree it cuts down on parts and weight, but I don't think it's worth it.

It does look like much more of a hassle to mount, but thinking of the end product with those gearboxes mounted nicely would make it worth it. Pain for Beauty.

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

two of the mounting bolts may be countersunk. That would aid a bit in assembly.

Countersinking would aid in assembly but it still would be more complicated to assemble than needed. Very interesting design though, kudos.

[Joe Ross]

What did you use for the weight of the motors (ie what is the real weight of the gearbox).

[Woody1458]

while you are making your own gearbox you could take a hint from 968/254 and add a FP motor .

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

while you are making your own gearbox you could take a hint from 968/254 and add a FP motor .

And then take another hint from 968/254 and take them out after the first regional .

They didn't even notice they were gone (I misheard something a while back, they noticed [like Cory says below]), and with the Big CIMs out of the kop, the FPs are better suited for a mechanism than added power in the drive (for most games)

[Cory]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

And then take another hint from 968/254 and take them out after the first regional .

They didn't even notice they were gone, and with the Big CIMs out of the kop, the FPs are better suited for a mechanism than added power in the drive (for most games)

I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate--we were definitely noticeably less speedy. it took a bit longer to accelerate to top speed.

The benefit we got out of putting the FP's elsewhere more than made up for the slightly slower acceleration.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

What did you use for the weight of the motors (ie what is the real weight of the gearbox).

How much do the CIMs weigh anyways? I've always wanted to know that

According to the AM website the toughboxes weigh 2.5 lbs. without motors. The only reason they weigh more than the Craig's is b/c they don't have any lightening patters on the gears (which as Kyle pointed out would make them more expensive).

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

How much do the CIMs weigh anyways? I've always wanted to know that

2.75 lbs

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Cory

2.75 lbs

Really?

So the gearbox weighs 1.6 oz.!!!?? Screw the toughboxes I know what I'm using next year