What would be the benefit of this over a traditional shifting gearbox? The only thing I could think would be it’s slightly thinner, which leaves more room for stuff between the gearboxes. But that at the expense of an additional ~5% efficiency loss and a lot of added complexity doesn’t seem worth it to me. Is there something I’m missing?
It’s likely just for the packaging. OP is an alumnus of 192 GRT, who has a history of repackagingdrivegearboxesfor space, at potentially some efficiency cost. It’s a choice, whether it’s worth it or not depends on what’s important for the rest of the robot/strategy.
Some other advantages this gearbox could provide is the ability to swap CIM motors easily, without disassembling the gearbox. If mounted in a traditional WCD setup, there’s easy access to the screws on top and a relatively small hole in the belly pan can make it possible to drop and swap the motors.
Very interesting. First thing I though of was “Wow, this looks like 192’s old gearboxes” and lo and behold, an alumnus of 192!
I really like this packaging. Giving up vertical space for space over the rails and between the rails is a really good tradeoff IMO, at the expense of cost and needing to align bevels. If you’re using 5mm HTD belts, WCP now sells a 12t pulley for CIMs as a COTS option.
Yea, Jason designed this while working at AndyMark last summer with our usual design philosophy of “using as many on the shelf parts as possible” We actually have had a 12T 5mm HTD CIM pulley in stock for a while for the DART, it just never made it up as it’s own product. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that next week.