pic: 973 teaser3

[AdamHeard]

loading photo ...

[RyanN]

Are the motors attached to the Banebots planetary gear boxes legal? I don't know the specs on the small motors they gave us, but they looked pretty weak. Is this the FP motor?

[lukevanoort]

So I guess that, while you guys have the same love for simple, FP powered arms that the BeachBots do, you don't agree on the merits of stock FP gearboxes?

[T3_1565]

oh for sure its legal to use banebots transmission are legal as long as they are ones you bought on the website!

Nice looking design, are those motors used for an arm type device, those look like pulleys to me, belt drive maybe???

[David Guzman]

They both look the same. In the kit we got a RS540 and a RS550. According to the specs on Banebot's website the RS550 is actually a little stronger than a Fisher Price without a gearbox.

What motors are those on the Banebot planetary gearboxes?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

Nice looking design, are those motors used for an arm type device, those look like pulleys to me, belt drive maybe???

Looks like the 973 version of the Beach'Bots favorite arm drive. Maybe they did it this way to make powering the arm easier? (On the stock FP output, you need some sort of adapter--usually an octagon--to drive a sprocket via a shaft.) As such, I would say chain drive, two stage reduction to the top.

[RyanN]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

oh for sure its legal to use banebots transmission are legal as long as they are ones you bought on the website!

Nice looking design, are those motors used for an arm type device, those look like pulleys to me, belt drive maybe???

I knew the transmissions were legal, but the motors all look the same (I was thinking that maybe they were planning on the mabuchi motor from last year)

Reminds me, I have to get someone to fix our motor tomorrow because our driver burned it up when he refused to listen to me. (Released the magic smoke, lots and lots of magic smoke)

[AdamHeard]

They are FP motors into 64:! planetary gearboxes.

FYI; eric has been entirely right with every single one of his responses/guesses in all 973 threads so far. I'd take his word in future ones.

We used the Banebots gearboxes because they were much easier to mount and interface. We made sure to stay away from the higher reduction models though.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by RyanN

I don't know the specs on the small motors they gave us, but they looked pretty weak.

You should take a look at the specs... you might be surprised.
http://banebots.com/p/M2-RS550-120

With this gearbox, you could get quite a bit of torque out of the 550.
http://banebots.com/pc/MP-42nnn-550/MP-42256-550

(However, the 385's do leave something to be desired.)

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by EricH

Looks like the 973 version of the Beach'Bots favorite arm drive. Maybe they did it this way to make powering the arm easier? (On the stock FP output, you need some sort of adapter--usually an octagon--to drive a sprocket via a shaft.) As such, I would say chain drive, two stage reduction to the top.

I would agree, 2 stage reduction appears to be consistent with the render here. I'm not sure if it is all chain though or a belt and then a chain as the bottom circle in the render doesn't have any teeth.

EDIT: although that doesn't mean a whole lot, I would guess it's far easier to draw the gear like that if you are making it yourself and not using a premade file.

[RyanN]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You should take a look at the specs... you might be surprised.
http://banebots.com/p/M2-RS550-120

With this gearbox, you could get quite a bit of torque out of the 550.
http://banebots.com/pc/MP-42nnn-550/MP-42256-550

(However, the 385's do leave something to be desired.)

Impressive for those small motors. I try to avoid the small motors since they have a tendency to burn up quickly if they stall.

EDIT: The 550s were not included in the KOP. The 385s were. There is quite a bit of a difference. http://www.mabuchi-motor.co.jp/cgi-b...AT_ID=rs_385ph

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

FYI; eric has been entirely right with every single one of his responses/guesses in all 973 threads so far. I'd take his word in future ones.

Just remember, I was on 330 during the 2005 and 2007 seasons, when we used this arm design...

Our favorite mounting tactic was to position the hole for the axle of the stock gearbox in such a way that the flat portion of the gearbox was against the mast section, then use an octagon in the output to finish holding it and then hose clamp the output around the octagon. Hey, it worked.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by RyanN

The 550s were not included in the KOP. The 385s were.

The KoP included two 385s, a 540, and a 550.

[Ben Piecuch]

Based on your mounting setup, I envision that the ability to mount / unmount these gearboxes will be fairly tricky. I don't see a whole lot of room to get a wrench in there to unbolt the face-mounted gearboxes. (Yes, a simple allen key will do it, but it's cumbersome.)

We're looking at an extremely similar setup, and access to the mounting holes is one of our concerns. Just wondering if you've thought of this as well.

Thanks,

Bengineer

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Ben Piecuch

Based on your mounting setup, I envision that the ability to mount / unmount these gearboxes will be fairly tricky. I don't see a whole lot of room to get a wrench in there to unbolt the face-mounted gearboxes. (Yes, a simple allen key will do it, but it's cumbersome.)

We're looking at an extremely similar setup, and access to the mounting holes is one of our concerns. Just wondering if you've thought of this as well.

Thanks,

Bengineer

I've tinkered with the weldament in our shop (the gearboxes aren't in yet) and an allen key gets in there pretty easily. Thank you for your advice though; I have certainly made stupider mistakes before