|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Two speed: 5 ft/sec and 15 ft/sec (calculated) with 4" custom wheels.
16-03-2007 15:48
AdamHeard
I like the pattern that matches the Big CIM face. How effective is that for retaining it? I was considering doing that for an update for next season to our base. How else is it held in.
Also, is it just the Big CIM in there?
If it is, are you using all four small CIMs elswhere? If you're not using all 4, what's the reason for going with Big over small.
16-03-2007 16:40
Andrew Blair
Why the choice to put the shifter on the last stage? Space looks a bit tight, but you could've taken advantage of lower forces on your ball lock.
16-03-2007 22:30
Gabe
|
I like the pattern that matches the Big CIM face. How effective is that for retaining it? I was considering doing that for an update for next season to our base. How else is it held in.
Also, is it just the Big CIM in there? If it is, are you using all four small CIMs elswhere? If you're not using all 4, what's the reason for going with Big over small. |
|
Why the choice to put the shifter on the last stage? Space looks a bit tight, but you could've taken advantage of lower forces on your ball lock.
|
18-03-2007 22:56
AdamHeard
|
1. The pattern matching the large CIM is very effective for retaining, as it uses less parts and can handle the motor torque shock. The motor is also held by the metric threaded stud already present on the motor face. One recommendation for anyone interested in this method would be to also drill a hole though the tab for a 1/4-20 screw.
2.Yes, that is just the large CIM. This year our team is going for simplicity, so the transmission is designed around the big CIM 2500 rpm. We did not use the small CIM's anywhere else. |
18-03-2007 23:24
Gabe
|
I'm admittedly confused about this... If no small CIMs are being used, why didn't you build a ball lock using two small CIMs? It'd be about the same weight and over twice as powerful.
|