|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
More of an experiment than something that I really intend to be made, but I wanted to try out an all-belt gearbox. It uses a dog shifter with custom dog-pulleys made by joining two pulleys to fit both the dog tooth profile and a bearing. Uses 3mm GT3 belts. The idea is to run this gearbox in a belt or chain in tube system and have the CIMs rest above the 2x2. It's spaced so that the CIMs won't hang over the edge.
It's a WIP and is missing most hardware but the base idea is done.
24-04-2016 22:28
asid61Not quite all belt- the first stage is gears. 
In any case, this is a very interesting concept. I really like your compact execution of the idea.
The one thing that I'm worried about: why 9mm wide 3mm pitch GT3 over 15mm wide 5mm pitch? Even using 2 parallel 9mm belts (which may face issues with not lining up), this looks like it may not be strong enough.
I thought this type of gearbox would be unworkably large, but the first stage gear takes up most of the reduction so it works out.
The flipped cylinder arrangement looks a lot like 192's gearbox this year.
What are the reduction ratios?
24-04-2016 22:34
Colin Small|
Not quite all belt- the first stage is gears.
![]() In any case, this is a very interesting concept. I really like your compact execution of the idea. The one thing that I'm worried about: why 9mm wide 3mm pitch GT3 over 15mm wide 5mm pitch? Even using 2 parallel 9mm belts (which may face issues with not lining up), this looks like it may not be strong enough. I thought this type of gearbox would be unworkably large, but the first stage gear takes up most of the reduction so it works out. The flipped cylinder arrangement looks a lot like 192's gearbox this year. What are the reduction ratios? |

24-04-2016 22:34
Joey MiliaYeah, bit curious why you left the first stage gears when you've used them everywhere else. It seems to be the reverse of optimal.
Could you post the tooth counts of each stage and any math you've done to confirm you'll have enough power capacity with the belts.
Also need to think lot harder about that inverse pneumatic. I know this is a rough CAD but what you have could potentially kill the cylinder, way to flimsy.
Otherwise I like how it's turned out.
EDIT: by belts not lining up I think he means if you're not carful how you join the pulleys together one of the two belts might not fit into the teeth correctly.
EDIT2: pneumatic is less flimsy if you have another one the other side. Still could be stronger.
24-04-2016 22:38
asid61|
SDP doesn't make belts smaller then 40 tech so using 5mm GT3 would mean spacing everything out too much
What do you mean by the belts not lining up? And yeah, I took a bit of inspiration from 192 ![]() I had the reductions written down somewhere but I think it's something like 10:1 and 20:1. |
24-04-2016 23:04
Colin Small|
For your second stage pulleys, they are constrained in rotation by the hex bore. Let's say you accidentally broach one so that the tip of the hex lines up with a groove, and the one next to it such that the flat of the hex lines up with a groove.
At this point the two pulleys do not perfectly match up in their rotations. This wouldn't be a problem, only for their mating pulleys you have the same problem- the teeth may not match up. This means that you could face some major indexing issues that would screw up the meshes on at least 1 pulley at a time. The way to fix that would be to use a jig to align the pulleys before broaching/machining. |
24-04-2016 23:08
Colin Small|
Yeah, bit curious why you left the first stage gears when you've used them everywhere else. It seems to be the reverse of optimal.
Could you post the tooth counts of each stage and any math you've done to confirm you'll have enough power capacity with the belts. Also need to think lot harder about that inverse pneumatic. I know this is a rough CAD but what you have could potentially kill the cylinder, way to flimsy. Otherwise I like how it's turned out. EDIT: by belts not lining up I think he means if you're not carful how you join the pulleys together one of the two belts might not fit into the teeth correctly. EDIT2: pneumatic is less flimsy if you have another one the other side. Still could be stronger. |
24-04-2016 23:27
Joey Milia|
What about the paramedics are flimsy? I can always add a support on the back of them.
Edit: I realize that the pictures pneumatic is orientated wrong. The fittings should be either vertical up or horizontal to the outside of the gearbox. |
24-04-2016 23:34
asid61|
Ah, I see.
Considering that there'll be three holes for joining the two sets of large pulleys, I don't see a problem with those. If I do end up having this made I'll probably use a jig for the driving pulleys. |

24-04-2016 23:52
Colin Small|
It's less the pneumatic itself and more of the connection with the shifting shaft. This is helped a lot by having a second pneumatic on the other side, but thats not ideal. With only one pneumatic theres a huge moment on plate connecting the pneumatic to the shaft. That will want to bend both the plate and the pneumatic shaft and generally push everything out of alignment. It's very important that that connection and whole assembly be very stiff. Once again though, if there are two pneumatics then that moment is balanced and it's less of a problem.
The pneumatic layout on the GRT gearbox this year was designed for just one pneumatic and designed to deal with this moment. There are two on there because we were having a bit of trouble shifting in a few extreme conditions so added the second for safety, there is improvement to be made to get back to one. |
24-04-2016 23:53
Colin Small|
The same problem still exists.
![]() This has killed me before, so I'm always careful about overconstraining now lol. To avoid this problem, you could try using timing belt pulley stock instead of just pulleys. That would be a guaranteed fit. As it is, you are machining them anyway. |
25-04-2016 01:01
KohKohPuffs|
Just curious, what'd you guys do to get it to work smoothly (for the most part) win one pneumatic?
|

25-04-2016 13:22
Colin Small|
Also, the other issue that would come up would be connecting the piston to the shifting rod. Tried that once, and I hated it. You could add a third plate for spacing like what 254 did with their gearbox this year. Then piston-wheel collisions wouldn't happen anymore. Just some things that I thought of, having designed 3+ of these inverted gearbox. Hope this helps! |
25-04-2016 19:15
Joey Milia|
Just curious, what'd you guys do to get it to work smoothly (for the most part) win one pneumatic?
|