Go to Post Adding an ounce or two of shields is way easier than filling out the mountains of paperwork for that one impatient person to stick their arm into the robot reaching for who knows what only to have their fingers meet up close and personal with a gearbox. - artdutra04 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Motors
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-02-2013, 00:59
Saberbot's Avatar
Saberbot Saberbot is offline
Ask me about Glentite™
AKA: David Ingraham
FRC #4146 (Saguaro Sabercat Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 109
Saberbot is just really niceSaberbot is just really niceSaberbot is just really niceSaberbot is just really nice
Climbing with CIM's: Versaplanetary Vs. P80 Vs. Multistage Planrtary/Spur Combo

Over the course of the build season, we went through three iterations of our climbing mechanism, the first two being pneumatic, and the third powered by a CIM. Rev. 2 was implemented in time for our Week 0 Scrimmage, but it had a fundamental flaw that required a quick redesign. We decided to start over on 3:00 Sunday afternoon. Our frantic "three days to go" design session was centered around using parts we had lying around in the shop. This led to us using a slightly scary solution for our gearbox: a CIM attached to a three stage Versaplanetary with a 75:1 reduction (Motor-->Output: 3:1, 5:1, 5:1). We were scared because we knew that this gearbox was never designed to take this kind of a load, but it was our only option.

54 hours later, we finally tested our new system an hour before bag and tag. Due to a few easily remedied binding issues (our linear bearings were actually 8 year old drawer slides with no ball bearings) we stalled the CIM multiple times, and the gearbox remained perfectly intact.

Since Tuesday, I have been doing some research on other options for planetary gearboxes for CIMs, as well as looking into the actual load ratings for versaplanetaries.

What I've found so far:

The Versaplanetary has two failure modes, the output shaft and the "10:1 Carrier Plate" Source
The 1/2" hex shaft (what we're using, supported on both sides) is rated for 116 ft-lbs
We don't have a 10:1 ratio, so I believe we can ignore the carrier plate rating (74 ft-lbs)

What I'm confused about:
Does this mean that the Versaplanetary will never fail in a 3:1 or 5:1 gear stage?
Are we in major red, considering that a stalled CIM would give 134 ft-lbs of torque at the output shaft?

Our first other consideration was to switch to a Banebots P80. However, I was surprised to read that it is rated for only 85 ft-lbs, about half of what we want for safety. Why is this gearbox so weak if it's designed for CIM? Here on chief, I found a bunch of horror stories of P80's self destructing.

Our final option is to use a versaplanetary or P80 as a first stage (something comfortable, 20:1?) leading into a spur gear or chain reduction.

Anybody have any thoughts or comments? Please let me know If I have made any errors in my reasoning, I'm still a bit new at this.

Thanks!
__________________
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi