|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
3CIM Single stage shifter. 18/60t and 24/54t gears as shown. Vex Ball Shifter shaft parts.
03-11-2014 11:44
jwfossThis is some slick packaging. Nice work!
Any chance you've got a view from the rear of the gearbox?
03-11-2014 12:37
billbo911I like the packaging a lot. That said, a 1.48 spread seems a bit tight. Unless you plan on using tiny wheels, it looks like you will need a third stage of reduction some where in the drive train.
Do you have plans for additional reduction?
03-11-2014 12:49
Lil' Lavery
Based on the small amount of reduction and the relatively short output shaft, I'm going to assume you're planning on more reduction via sprocket/pulley after this gearbox.
03-11-2014 13:48
jman4747That's a positive on the extra reduction. Probably 12t - 26t sprocket to some 4in wheels.
03-11-2014 17:11
DekeThat's pretty slick, I like it!
Question, what's retaining the gears on the cim shaft?
03-11-2014 17:56
jman4747
03-11-2014 18:47
BBray_T1296Any reason you chose to put the higher reduction on the outside (further from the CIM)?
Your low gear would be operating at higher torques and there would be more deflecting force attempting to separate the gears.
This is probably not even a real issue but with a cantilevered shaft it is usually better to keep the net force closer to the bushing.
03-11-2014 19:26
jman4747|
Any reason you chose to put the higher reduction on the outside (further from the CIM)?
Your low gear would be operating at higher torques and there would be more deflecting force attempting to separate the gears. This is probably not even a real issue but with a cantilevered shaft it is usually better to keep the net force closer to the bushing. |
03-11-2014 22:36
Chris is meIt looks like there's *barely* any spread between the two ratios. How different are the output ratios?
I've spent considerable time trying to make a first-stage shifter like this work, and ultimately I gave up when I realized that I couldn't package a spread of two good ratios together well enough to justify the complexity.
03-11-2014 23:16
billbo911|
I like the packaging a lot. That said, a 1.48 spread seems a bit tight. ....
|
|
It looks like there's *barely* any spread between the two ratios. How different are the output ratios?....
|
04-11-2014 00:24
asid61|
It would be quite simple to replicate spread of the standard VexPro Ball Shifter of 2.27.
All you would need to do is use the 8mm to .500in Hex adapter from Andy Mark on the CIMs. Then mount a 24 tooth .500in Hex bore (27-2704) and 40 tooth .500in Hex bore (217-2708) from VEXpro on the CIMS. Then use the standard gear set (60 and 44 tooth) on the shifter/output section. |
04-11-2014 00:55
R.C.
|
It would be quite simple to replicate spread of the standard VexPro Ball Shifter of 2.27.
All you would need to do is use the 8mm to .500in Hex adapter from Andy Mark on the CIMs. Then mount a 24 tooth .500in Hex bore (27-2704) and 40 tooth .500in Hex bore (217-2708) from VEXpro on the CIMS. Then use the standard gear set (60 and 44 tooth) on the shifter/output section. |
04-11-2014 16:12
billbo911|
I would personally opt for the VEXpro adapter:
http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ha.../217-3255.html A little cheaper and a little longer. |
04-11-2014 20:57
Nuttyman54
|
It would be quite simple to replicate spread of the standard VexPro Ball Shifter of 2.27.
|
05-11-2014 11:30
BBray_T1296|
I would personally opt for the VEXpro adapter:
http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ha.../217-3255.html A little cheaper and a little longer. |
05-11-2014 13:08
billbo911|
The problem is that the reductions you get from those stages are to small to realistically do a direct chain reduction, so you'd need to add an additional gear stage...at which point you're back at something akin to the available COTS options. You're trading reduction for spread
The stages the OP has modeled are 18:60 and 24:54, which are 3.33 and 2.25 reductions, respectively. The alternative gearing you propose to get the 2.27 spread (24:60 and 40:44) only give 2.5 and 1.1 reductions, respectively. You could maybe do a 34:44 reduction instead of the 24:54 reduction, for a 2.57 spread (almost the same as an AndyMark Supershifter), but that still ends up awfully fast (20fps range) with a 12:36 chain reduction. |
05-11-2014 16:44
jman4747|
No doubt about that, it is NOT an ideal way to go. There needs to be a more reduction at the first stage to make this a viable solution. I was just trying to get the spread a bit greater.
Honestly, after using the original ball shifter for two years now, we would like to see a bit more spread than 2.27. 2.57 is probably closer to where we want to be, although even that may not be absolutely ideal either. Ahhhh compromise, the bane of all things Engineering! |