pic: Two Motor, 4WD

[Tristan Lall]

Do you have the ratios handy? I'm somewhat concerned with the torque that's going to be passing through the pinions (especially on the centre shaft). If the black 3/16" material is hardened steel, you'd be off to a good start. That centre pinion (20 teeth?) looks like it will die first, if anything has got to go, though.

Also, with thin hubless gears, you'll need to consider how you want to mount them to the shaft. Lots of ways (e.g. keys, adhesives, welds, hubs, press fits, etc.) are possible, but it all depends on how you want to be able to disassemble it.

I'd consider leaving a little bit of clearance between the side plate and the face of the gears. In an ideal world, there would be exactly zero clearance, and exactly zero friction between them; in real life, the gear will wobble somewhat, and touch the plate, probably producing visible scratches, and yielding correspondingly increased friction (at least until it wears in).

Regarding the CIMs, am I overlooking a spacer somewhere, or have you constrained the front of the CIMs' raised centre protrusion (you know, the 0.750" one with the shaft in the middle—what's this called, anyway?) to the surface of the plate? You probably want the faceplate of the motor to sit flush instead, and to leave a hole for the centre protrusion.

Regarding the diameter of the shafting, you'll probably need to use something torsionally rigid to use that size; almost certainly steel, and pre-hardened, precision-ground would be a bonus. And of course, I assume a nice set of ball bearings will be added in later....

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Regarding the CIMs, am I overlooking a spacer somewhere, or have you constrained the front of the CIMs' raised centre protrusion (you know, the 0.750" one with the shaft in the middle—what's this called, anyway?) to the surface of the plate? You probably want the faceplate of the motor to sit flush instead, and to leave a hole for the centre protrusion.

And upon a second look, I think I see the problem: if the faceplate of the motor were constrained to the surface of the gearbox plate, the tip of the motor shaft might interfere with the second stage of gears. If that's really the case—and I'm not being fooled by some trick of perspective (it sucks when you can't just rotate the picture and look underneath!)—you can either use a spacer, widen the gearbox, or cut the shaft. I'd probably go with widening the gearbox, unless space is an issue, because the spacer will likely give you another component to add complexity and misalignment to the assembly, and if you avoid cutting the shaft, it means that when you really, really, need to change a blown motor for the next match, you can just borrow one from me and install it, rather than having to run around trying to find a hacksaw with which to modify the shaft. Actually, there's another option which may or may not work; that's to rearrange the gears so that this shaft doesn't interfere—but this may necessitate a change of ratio, or idlers, or other more involved changes.

[Nikhil Bajaj]

What are the diametral pitch of the gears and their thicknesses? I'm worried about that 20-tooth as well...

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by nikkibajbaj

What are the diametral pitch of the gears and their thicknesses? I'm worried about that 20-tooth as well...

The thickness for the gears are .25". I suggested him to make them .375". As far the pitch of the gears go... Matt will answer that. There are no 20 tooth gear in that transmission. He is using 3 15 tooth gear and 3 60 tooth gear. Each sprockets has 16 tooth.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

The thickness for the gears are .25". I suggested him to make them .375". As far the pitch of the gears go... Matt will answer that. There are no 20 tooth gear in that transmission. He is using 3 15 tooth gear and 3 60 tooth gear. Each sprockets has 16 tooth.

Are you sure about the 0.25" thickness for the gears? Compared to the front plate of the CIM (which is definately 0.25"), they seem smaller. Maybe Matt changed them without posting an updated picture? Depending on the material, I think that these narrow gears could be made to work for the first (higher speed) stage; it's the second stage that will fail first.

And as for 15 vs. 20 teeth, 15 just makes things worse! (Higher stresses on the pinion, and depending on the pressure angle of the gear, the potential for some significantly undercut teeth.)

[Nikhil Bajaj]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Are you sure about the 0.25" thickness for the gears?

And as for 15 vs. 20 teeth, 15 just makes things worse! (Higher stresses on the pinion, and depending on the pressure angle of the gear, the potential for some significantly undercut teeth.)

I'm going to second the .375 suggestion--that'll definitely be safe...even our 12 tooth, 20 pitch, .375 gears on our gearbox that used 2 chips and a fish was fine...then again the small gears were early to middle stages in the gearbox so the torque was not so high. But I think .375 should be fine. And if you do go with the wider gears then it may make it easier for you to work out the spacing for the gearbox.

By the way, how are the plates with the bearings and such mounted to the other section? For gearboxes, precise and accurate alignment is absolutely critical. A few thousandths of an inch of misalignment can have a horrendous effect on efficiency. You may want to figure out a way to keep it spaced well...we picked a silly design last year and we ended up having to remake the spacing blocks like three times, and even after that had to use a shim or two.