4-speed gear automatic gearbox

[Maxwell777]

I jokingly mentioned to a teammate earlier that we should cad a 4-speed gearbox, but now that I think about it, has anyone else ever done a 4-speed gearbox and controlled it like an automatic transmission in a car? It seems fairly straight forward, have an encoder on the shaft to determine if the robot is either stalling (trying to push another robot) or has stopped accelerating (has hit full speed), and in response, either shift up or shift down.

Has anyone done anything like this and do you think it is worth doing?

[EricH]

FRC0033, Killer Bees, did one many moons ago. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1580

Bear in mind that the motors used are no longer FRC-legal.

And yes, this was automatic. I seem to remember that associated code filters wound up in a sponsor's product because they were handy.

[Maxwell777]

Originally Posted by EricH

FRC0033, Killer Bees, did one many moons ago. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1580

Bear in mind that the motors used are no longer FRC-legal.

And yes, this was automatic. I seem to remember that associated code filters wound up in a sponsor's product because they were handy.

Awesome. They managed to make it pretty compact. It doesn't look much bigger than your avg single speed gearbox.

Was it ever built/used? Is there a video of it?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Maxwell777

Was it ever built/used? Is there a video of it?

To answer the first question, yes, I do believe it was built and used in 2004. (And apparently rather effectively.

As for the video... Zondag, IKE, Palardy, you guys know of any? I'm pretty sure most of the usual sources wouldn't have any--video didn't become a really big thing for a few years after that.

[wasayanwer97]

Not sure if anyone has ever done it before, but from a practical standpoint, I can't imagine a situation that would justify the complexity and relative bulk of a 4-speed gearbox.

From a design standpoint it's relatively straightforwards. It would just be either the addition of an extra shifter stage (if you wanted to try to use COTS shafts/parts), or a custom shifting shaft and multiple-position cylinder/actuator.
If you wanted all four speeds on the same shaft, you'd probably find it easiest to use a custom ballshifter. (Though I don't have any experience with >2 speed drives.)

[sanddrag]

Team 968 did a 4-speed gearbox a couple different years. I want to say it was 2004 and 2005. I don't remember if it was autoshifting though.

On 696, we tried an autoshifting algorithm on our 2-speed this year and did not find any appreciable distance in field-crossing time when compared to leaving it in high gear, even with varying the shift point through a range of set points.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Team 968 did a 4-speed gearbox a couple different years. I want to say it was 2004 and 2005. I don't remember if it was autoshifting though.

On 696, we tried an autoshifting algorithm on our 2-speed this year and did not find any appreciable distance in field-crossing time when compared to leaving it in high gear, even with varying the shift point through a range of set points.

One of our mentors made an excel graph of acceleration without friction with selectable speeds and calculus and stuff. It basically showed that speeds from 10-30fps will accelerate at almost the same rate until they top out at max speed. The only real change in accleration rate was noticed when we changed the inputs from 4 cim to 6 cim.

It's not extremely difficult to autoshift. Normally you would be in high gear, but the driver would have a low gear override pushbutton to go into low gear for normal driving. Then you could just put a current sensor in the motor circuit and shift into low gear whenever current gets too high.
4 speeds seems excessive to me, because all you really ever need is a normal drive gear and a low pushing/ positioning gear.
You can also just use PWM control to lessen the duty cycle of the motors if current spikes.

[Jeffy]

Originally Posted by Maxwell777

Has anyone done anything like this and do you think it is worth doing?

I really do think that with enough work at it, this could be a better solution than a single or two-speed drive. The real problem that any team faces is shifting speed vs. the actual advantage gained from a new speed.

Side note: I believe that 217 did a CVT in 2002. That may be of interest.

[BBray_T1296]

Here is the main problem with anything more than a single or 2 speed gearbox:
Time

The field is 54 feet long, and (this year) 25 feet wide. The furthest distance you could possibly need to travel, straight line, is ~60 feet.

The question is not whether you get more top speed out of 4 gears, but whether or not you can do such a thing in 60 feet, including stopping. If you have a straight line top speed of 30fps (or 1116.437fps for that matter), if you cannot reach said speed by the time you cover the length of the court, you have an improperly designed gearbox.

We ran a 5.5fps and a 15.5fps drivetrain this year, with 6 CIMS in ballshifters. The actual, tested, realistic acceleration time we got from starting in first gear, reaching 5.5fps, then shifting up "on-the-fly", only gained us hardly measurable time. We, like most if not all teams who use shifting gearboxes do not use them for decreased acceleration time, but for torque vs speed selection-low gear for plowing, high-gear at all other times. Integrating some smart code to decide which gear to use based on wheel speed is definitely a good thing, but not why the shifters were chosen for the design.

Is such a challenge to build a compact 4speed transmission a great off-season project? sure- but consider this before using it on next years game: the field is everything.
If you save 0.1 seconds crossing the field with your new system, but you only do it 2-3 times a match, is it worth all that effort just for the extra 0.3 seconds you gain? Also, if we have another game like 2010 or 2010, having more speeds is useless because the field is even smaller.


Also, will you ever get a straight-line path? more often than not, no. There will be some field element, or one of the other 5 robots in you way, that you will have to steer around. Steering slows you down, in all cases of tank drive, as you must slow one side to turn that direction. That will further hinder your capability.


Sorry for being the Debbie-Downer, but that is my $0.02

[Abhishek R]

We used auto shifting this year, and it did help us get up to speed faster. I can't comment on the specific technical aspect as to why, but in both 2013 and 2014 our robot always starts in 1st then shifts up to 2nd on the fly then back down to 1st when we come to a stop. It puts less strain on the battery - we could leave it in second all the time while we had a fresh battery, but found it could quickly get run down.

[techtiger1]

recommend less led lights on the robot next year 624, it might save some battery .

[Stephen.Yanczura]

When I was on 195 as a student in '05 I copied the 33 design, made a few changes and we used it on our robot that year with our (at the time) perennial tank track drive. It was cool, fun, and a great experience BUT wholly unnecessary.

[JohnFogarty]

Originally Posted by techtiger1

recommend less led lights on the robot next year 624, it might save some battery .

Not that this is the thread for that, but the amount of LEDs they had on their robot...I don't even think they were drawing much more than an amp.

[Nick Lawrence]

Team 1503 built an offseason drivetrain that utilized two 4 speed transmissions designed by Pat Fairbank. Check it out here.

-Nick

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeffy

I really do think that with enough work at it, this could be a better solution than a single or two-speed drive. The real problem that any team faces is shifting speed vs. the actual advantage gained from a new speed.

Side note: I believe that 217 did a CVT in 2008. That may be of interest.

Here's 217's whitepaper on their CVT (from 2002). http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1361