|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Earlier today, I Asked myself "If I were a VEXpro engineer, and I wanted to design a knew ball shifting gearbox, What would it look like?"
This is what I've come up with. Gear ratios are adjustable, but are currently 4.95 to 1 in high, and 11.25 to 1 in low. At free speed on a 4" wheel, that's 8.25 and 18.75 f/s.
Questions and comment are welcome.
01-12-2014 10:06
ArpanThose ratios are just about perfect.
Have you considered trying to make the Cims or shafts removable to facilitate easy gearbox removal?
Also, you may want more than just the two holes in the WCD block to mount the gearbox to the tube. Two more holes higher up on the gearbox would add a lot of strength.
01-12-2014 10:40
jagoldmanThat is a great looking gearbox!
I have a few questions though...
1) How much does it weigh?
2) What are the actual gears that are being used? The tooth count would be good, no need for product numbers.
3) How do you plan on mounting the gearbox?
01-12-2014 10:57
JesseKIt is as if Bryce's and R.C.'s two minds are like one. All that's missing are wave washers and an adjustable CIM mount for multiple CIM pinion options. The standoffs are slightly nested into the side plates for extra alignment support, but that's probably optional if there are other supports.
This makes me wonder if we can simply replace the output shaft and output gears on the WCP gearbox with their ball-shifting counterparts to get something that works with minimal modifications.
01-12-2014 11:14
Arpan|
This makes me wonder if we can simply replace the output shaft and output gears on the WCP gearbox with their ball-shifting counterparts to get something that works with minimal modifications. |
01-12-2014 11:23
JesseK|
Why would you do that? What advantages do ballshifters have?
I seem to recall that ballshifters wear out faster ,but I could be wrong there. |
01-12-2014 11:51
Chris is meI think the lightening on the plates is just a bit too aggressive. Reducing weight is nice and all but you still want to keep your gearbox rigid and strong. I would thicken the webs and probably add another horizontal web(s) between the edge and the bearing for the first reduction. Just seems like not a lot of support to me. If you're that desperate to save a couple of ounces, lighten the gears before you lighten the sideplates that aggressively.
I would also be concerned about how little you are supporting the top CIM on this gearbox.
01-12-2014 13:16
AdamHeard
I have my doubts about the press fit into the end of the ballshifter shaft in such a configuration.
01-12-2014 13:40
Bryce2471|
Have you considered trying to make the Cims or shafts removable to facilitate easy gearbox removal?
Also, you may want more than just the two holes in the WCD block to mount the gearbox to the tube. Two more holes higher up on the gearbox would add a lot of strength. |
|
1) How much does it weigh?
2) What are the actual gears that are being used? The tooth count would be good, no need for product numbers. 3) How do you plan on mounting the gearbox? |
|
I seem to recall that ballshifters wear out faster ,but I could be wrong there.
|
|
I think the lightening on the plates is just a bit too aggressive. Reducing weight is nice and all but you still want to keep your gearbox rigid and strong.
|
|
I have my doubts about the press fit into the end of the ballshifter shaft in such a configuration.
|
01-12-2014 13:42
AdamHeard
|
This uses a simple one piece output shaft. Machinable on a manual mill and lathe.
Thanks for all the great responses! Keep it up! |
01-12-2014 13:54
Chris is me|
That's just how I roll. If we're already going to be milling out the plates, why not optimize for the lowest weight reasonable?
|
01-12-2014 14:09
Bryce2471|
The CIM mounting is especially concerning as the moment applied by the mass of the motor will tend to bend the pinions away from the cluster gear, weakening both of them.
There's no reason to lighten a gearbox so aggressively when you have all that extra material in your gears that serves so much less function than the material you've removed from the gearbox. |
01-12-2014 15:02
JaredI agree with others who say that the top CIM isn't mounted well enough. Your gearbox might survive, but adding that extra support for 0.05 lbs gives you a lot more gearbox strength. The heavy CIM motor hanging off the end of the plate will cause the plate to deform, especially when your robot accelerates/decelerates really quickly during a collision.
If you look at many teams' gearbox plates, you'll notice that the plate outlines tend to be completely convex, rather than having little things sticking out. The outline is entirely made up of straight segments, and segments of circles that have their centers inside of the outline of the plate. This also adds a ton of strength, and requires the same size stock to machine from.
The top one is mounted in a weaker configuration because of the orientation of the mounting screws.
01-12-2014 15:50
RonnieS|
Those ratios are just about perfect.
Have you considered trying to make the Cims or shafts removable to facilitate easy gearbox removal? Also, you may want more than just the two holes in the WCD block to mount the gearbox to the tube. Two more holes higher up on the gearbox would add a lot of strength. |
01-12-2014 15:56
nathannfm|
Have you considered trying to make the Cims or shafts removable to facilitate easy gearbox removal?
|
|
I don't see how the top motor is mounted less securely than the top motor of the WCP 3 CIM DS gearbox.
|
01-12-2014 16:05
Bryce2471|
If you look at many teams' gearbox plates, you'll notice that the plate outlines tend to be completely convex, rather than having little things sticking out. The outline is entirely made up of straight segments, and segments of circles that have their centers inside of the outline of the plate. This also adds a ton of strength, and requires the same size stock to machine from.
|
| The top one is mounted in a weaker configuration because of the orientation of the mounting screws. |
01-12-2014 16:21
Jared|
I've looked at these gearbox designs before, and I wasn't able to see how it benefited the strength of the gearbox at all. If you could be more specific about how that improves the gearbox strength, that would be really helpful.
|
| As far as I can tell, the top CIM on the WCP 3 CIM DS gearbox is mounted in the same configuration. |
01-12-2014 16:33
Bryce2471|
It looks like one CIM mounting bolt on each CIM is blocked by the gears, and that this problem could be solved by slightly rotating the CIMs but this might just be becuase of the angle of the render.
|
| In yours there is much less webbing at the edges of the CIMs. Particularly the top one where there it is best to have webbing near the bottom of said CIM as this will prevent the CIM from sagging. I would recommend adding a web between the top standoffs on the back plate which would cross over the lower face of the top CIM. |
01-12-2014 16:33
Arpan|
The two lower bolts on the gear box should be able to go through the tubing used on drive rail. You would drill a clearance whole on the outer wall and the correct size on the interior wall.
|
01-12-2014 17:09
JaredI modified my gearbox plate to look more like yours and did a simple factor of safety analysis. A lower factor of safety corresponds to more load on the material, and a greater deformation of the part.
You could likely get away with what you have drawn up, but some simple improvements will yield huge strength increases. The biggest change you should make is using the 0.75" boss on the front of the CIM to help locate the CIM. It'll increase the positional accuracy of the CIM by quite a bit, and it'll make the part even stronger.
All tests were done with the the mounting holes as fixed geometry, and the only load was gravity acting on the 2.82 pound CIM motor. You can roughly double the strength of the part while adding about 0.03 pounds.
You can also see why having a convex outline helps too.
http://imgur.com/a/xTIpW
This is what we came up with last year for a 3 CIM configuration:
http://imgur.com/DSjie1M
01-12-2014 18:06
Bryce2471|
I modified my gearbox plate to look more like yours and did a simple factor of safety analysis. A lower factor of safety corresponds to more load on the material, and a greater deformation of the part.
You could likely get away with what you have drawn up, but some simple improvements will yield huge strength increases. The biggest change you should make is using the 0.75" boss on the front of the CIM to help locate the CIM. It'll increase the positional accuracy of the CIM by quite a bit, and it'll make the part even stronger. All tests were done with the the mounting holes as fixed geometry, and the only load was gravity acting on the 2.82 pound CIM motor. You can roughly double the strength of the part while adding about 0.03 pounds. You can also see why having a convex outline helps too. http://imgur.com/a/xTIpW This is what we came up with last year for a 3 CIM configuration: http://imgur.com/DSjie1M |

| stress analysis on a couple of our gearbox plates in SolidWorks |
01-12-2014 18:13
Chris is meHonestly I think it's best practice to design a gearbox as if it was made from solid plate, then lighten after the fact. So the outline of the gearbox is defined by the edge of the CIMs, etc - then remove material. Right now it looks like you're making webs and connecting them, and it's a lot easier to mess that up than it is to go the other way. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
For those reading who want to learn, more on pocketing in this great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGmsnD0KQMs
01-12-2014 18:33
Jared|
Thanks you! This is useful information.
![]() I will consider these images when modifying the design. What software did you use for this? |
|
Honestly I think it's best practice to design a gearbox as if it was made from solid plate, then lighten after the fact. So the outline of the gearbox is defined by the edge of the CIMs, etc - then remove material. Right now it looks like you're making webs and connecting them, and it's a lot easier to mess that up than it is to go the other way. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
More on pocketing in this great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGmsnD0KQMs |
01-12-2014 18:43
Chris is me|
I start with a layout sketch of center to center distances, and use it to make a second sketch with outlines for bolt holes and bearings. Next, I draw in the webs as just single lines, usually between the center of two circles. I use the offset tool to create the outline of the webs. In the same sketch, I also draw the outline of the gearbox and use the offset tool again to give it thickness. Finally, I fillet and mirror everything. How else are people doing it? I really like the method described in the video.
Here's an example of my normal approach: http://imgur.com/a/gXYzS |
01-12-2014 19:05
asid61On lightening:
I've tried a few different styles and I use something similar to Bryce's method nowadays. However, I start with a huge plate, cut all the holes, and then I draw lines connecting the holes and offset them. Then I cut away all the parts that aren't connecting beams or clearances around the holes. I fillet at the end.
I would love to see your ballshifting shaft. It might be harder to make than you realize if it's in one piece.
01-12-2014 19:37
AdamHeard
|
On lightening:
I've tried a few different styles and I use something similar to Bryce's method nowadays. However, I start with a huge plate, cut all the holes, and then I draw lines connecting the holes and offset them. Then I cut away all the parts that aren't connecting beams or clearances around the holes. I fillet at the end. I would love to see your ballshifting shaft. It might be harder to make than you realize if it's in one piece. |
01-12-2014 22:35
Bryce2471|
I started this way, and now prefer the method in the video that Chris linked.
We try to go with thinner plates, and skip pocketing alltogether, so the style lends itself well to that as well. I hate parts blowing up on changes, so the connect the dots method is a no go for me. Granted. I'm a grumpy jerk and hate tedious/manual CAD methods. I don't have the energy to brute force with dumb methods like I used to when I was younger. |
01-12-2014 23:00
asid61|
I prefer thicker plates because they support the bearing better.
I figure, if we're going to use a CNC machine to cut the plates, we may as well pocket them. I've found that if you use formulas for as many dimensions as possible, use constraints to eliminate as many dimensions as possible, and use rule fillets instead of manual ones, then most changes won't take nearly as much effort. |
01-12-2014 23:35
Bryce2471|
+1 on the thicker plates; I like to conterbore the bearings so they're more secure and easier to press, and they allow for flush mounting with the 2x1 easily.
I wasn't sure if you saw, but do you have a an isometric view of the ballshifter shaft? |
01-12-2014 23:56
asid61|
Here's a pic of it:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...d4841aad532276 |
02-12-2014 00:57
nathannfm|
I think the WCP gearbox only has one web that goes vertically to the bottom of the CIM. That is what this configuration has as well. Here is a close up of the CIM mount:
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...e9&oe=54D168FA |
|
The biggest change you should make is using the 0.75" boss on the front of the CIM to help locate the CIM. It'll increase the positional accuracy of the CIM by quite a bit, and it'll make the part even stronger.
|
|
Here's a pic of it:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...d4841aad532276 |
|
For those reading who want to learn, more on pocketing in this great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGmsnD0KQMs
|
02-12-2014 01:07
asid61|
Ah, this clears it up, most of that webbing was not visible in the original render and that makes me much happier about the support of the CIM.
This sounds like a good idea but I would caution that you should know the tolerances of that boss and the tolerances of the equipment used to cut the hole in the plate. We made our first waterjet part ever a few weeks ago with a 0.750" hole for the boss and suprise suprise it comes back and the CIM won't fit. |
02-12-2014 01:46
Bryce2471|
This sounds like a good idea but I would caution that you should know the tolerances of that boss and the tolerances of the equipment used to cut the hole in the plate. We made our first waterjet part ever a few weeks ago with a 0.750" hole for the boss and suprise suprise it comes back and the CIM won't fit.
|
| Would this be all steel? I know the ball capture area is steel on the VexPro model presumably for wear reasons. Also, I know it would be pretty difficult to machine but I would recommend a fillet at the hex to round transition as that looks like its a pretty big stress riser. |
| Related to this component, if you make the hex shaft attach to the ball shifter with a pin or through bolt instead of making it one part it would make removal of the gearbox pretty simple. |
02-12-2014 01:48
R.C.
|
Thanks for the heads up.
The vex pro website says that ball shifter shafts are 7075-T6 aluminum. I considered this, but I didn't want to cut a negative hex into the end of the shaft. |
02-12-2014 01:56
Bryce2471|
The pressed in output hex shaft is. But the actual ball shaft is steel.
|
02-12-2014 01:59
R.C.
|
Interesting. Is the small shaft that engages the balls steel as well then? I find it hard to believe that they would use one steel and the other aluminum.
|
02-12-2014 02:16
Bryce2471|
The small "plunger"/shifter shaft is currently AL, might see an upgrade in the Future?
![]() |

02-12-2014 03:02
Mike Marandola
|
Lol
![]() Do you know if vex did any tests that suggest the ball carrier needs to be steel? My team built a ball shifter for our shooter last year. (I'll admit it's a different situation) We experienced that the ball carrier had the least wear out of the three shifter components. |
02-12-2014 03:16
Bryce2471
02-12-2014 03:33
Mike Marandola
|
I know. I addressed this issue earlier.
I was not referring to that part in this instance. the part I am talking about currently is what surrounds the plunger. |
02-12-2014 10:47
Chris is me|
Also, just to comment on that video I prefer the "sketch fillet" tool to the 3D fillet tool as it crashes much less, trims your lines for you, and contains all your pocketing features in one "Cut-Extrude". Also, if it crashes you are already in sketch mode to fix it.
|
02-12-2014 12:59
Bryce2471|
Seeing the support of the CIM in more detail makes me more comfortable in it - I guess it's just my personal preference to have a member follow the outer edge of the CIM to best support the face. You're probably good to go with what you have.
|
02-12-2014 14:13
Cory
|
Also, just to comment on that video I prefer the "sketch fillet" tool to the 3D fillet tool as it crashes much less, trims your lines for you, and contains all your pocketing features in one "Cut-Extrude". Also, if it crashes you are already in sketch mode to fix it.
|
02-12-2014 16:26
Jared|
We used 0.752" without problems last year, allthough it was sort of by accident- I plunged with a 0.75" end mill in place of a 5/8" and thought I screwed up. But it fit perfectly!
|
03-12-2014 00:08
JorgeReyesWhat gear sizes did you end up using on this gearbox?
03-12-2014 00:18
JorgeReyeswait never mind i just realized you already said this
03-12-2014 00:20
Bryce2471
03-12-2014 00:42
asid61|
The current gears are 12 to 50 for the cluster, 40 to 44 for high gear, and 24 to 60 for low gear.
Hope that makes sense. |
03-12-2014 01:23
Bryce2471|
Why can't you use the 34t ball shifter and 54t ballshifter gears? Do they not fit?
|
03-12-2014 14:45
Paul Copioli|
To each their own, but I would consider this very poor practice. It makes the part much less transparent to anyone else who may need to work on your design and is far less flexible, as mentioned by Chris.
If you need to fix fillets, like Adam displayed in his video, you can use the fillet tool to do face fillets that will bridge the intersection of faces where two fillets intersect. Then you don't need to sketch anything. |