Honestly, I regret using the term “bullshit now” a lot of you seam to of dwelled on that. I’m going to edit the bullshit comment out, and hopefully we can focus on something else.
Let me rephrase this, I think they are not necessary for this design. This is just my opinion, and you are all welcome to have your own opinions about this:
My primary design goal was to produce a gear drive that was robust enough for mountain boarding, an RRP of ~£300, light weight, and have steel helical gears that you don’t need to periodically replace.
I did actually build a version of “Prototype V1” with annular contact bearings and thrust bearings to cancel out the axial force from the gears, but it turned out to be expensive, heavy and noisy. My solution to this problem was to use 15mm face widths and a modest helix angle, this results in axial force that can be handled by deep groove ball bearings and a Loctite 648 retained pinion.
Having 15mm of face widths provide enough surface area for the Loctite 648 to effectively retain the pinon, if you used thinner gear face widths then you would have be inventive and use thrust bearings or other methods to deal with your axical forces.
So, I’m not saying thrust bearings are bullshit, they have their place in some situations, but I think they are unnecessary for this design.
There are a lot of differences between my drives and Boardnamics drives, maybe look a bit closer at the drawings and specifications. Here are some key differences:
Exactly! yes, it helps, with pinion bonding massively. There is also better tooth engagement for handing high torques and helping with wear.
My drives have steel gears with 15mm face widths, this provides enough surface area for the Loctite 648 to effectively retain the pinon, I don’t know what the face width of Boardnamics drives are, but they look thinner than 15mm from the product photos.
I been using the “Prototype 2” drives on my mountain board a while now, and I’ve had zero issues and I’ve thoroughly abused them. A lot of the time I’ve seen people have issues with retaining compound is when they have tried to use an alternative to Loctite 648, or not applied it properly.
Thanks a lot mate I really appreciate that, a lot of work went into the development of these.
It definitely a real product, not just a 3D render. “Prototype 2” is the latest design and I have been testing it on my mountain board for over 6 months now, I’ve had zero problems with it and thus I feel it’s ready for pre-ordering. Here are some pictures of the final iteration:
The only development work that will happen during the pre-order is designing and testing truck camps for different hangers, this will be a simple process as I designed the drive to accommodate almost any hanger. Here is an example of the MBS-Matrix II truck clamp, there will be a different truck clamp design each of the supported hangers:
For the pre-order I am focusing on what I think are the most popular trucks, but if there is enough demand after the pre-order it would be not problem to design a truck clamp for the Hypertrucks.
This has more to do with giving the motors more clearance distance between the wheel axis and the motor axis whilst both maintaining a sensibly-sized wheel gear for ground clearance as well as a sensible gear ratio for the wheel. It also doubles to serve most pre-built boards which don’t have the ability to change motor spin directions from clockwise to counter-clockwise (and vice versa), so that most of the esk8 crowd (definitely a much larger demographic than the DIY community) could also enjoy the benefits of gear-drives if they choose.
I don’t see the point in you calling the 3+ gears design bs… There’s no need for conflict there…
But using thrust bearings isn’t inherently bad or “bullshit”; it’s just a solution to the axial load. I understand that your solution was to use two opposing angular contact bearings instead to deal with both directions of the axial load while throttling and braking, but it is merely another solution, not a better one. Properly designed, both of these bearings will be able to handle the axial load these helical gears bring. No need to shame the other solution just because it’s more common/different than your own.
And also, it seems like your pinion gear doesn’t have a solution for the axial load. Breaking the motor will be an issue that’s bound to happen sooner or later, depending on the rider’s aggressiveness and the motor construction quality. The pinion gear not secured along its axis in the same way as the driven gear also makes it more compromised when it comes to gear meshing and wearing.
Upon finishing your dev thread, the final major issue I can think of is the three ratios you’re offering and the method of adjusting between them. I happen to be thoroughly involved in gear-drive designing and testing; some of the projects that I’ve been involved with have been mass marketed and hugely successful. With that, and being a mech-eng student as qualifications, I can tell you that one of the most critical factors of gear drives, mesh gap, is being overlooked with your ratio adjustment method. Throughout my drive testings, a mesh gap difference of a few hundredths of millimetres could massively affect the efficiency as well as the noise of the gear drive, I don’t think human hands manually adjusting mesh gap distances through moving the motor up and down a slot will be nearly as close as CNC drilling three different sets of mounting holes for each of the ratios, that locks and fixes a set mesh gap for each of the respective gear ratios. Getting each of these hole positions dialled in will take tons and tons of testing, but the result will be worth it.
I have a hard time believing that the hub adapter won’t flog out with how little meat is left around the contact points. Seems pretty much the same as how the BN AT M1s were designed.
a well designed outrunner will take axial loads fine they were literally designed for aircraft rotors
having both would be nice, however slots are also used in the apex drive
the bn at m1s had a through threaded hole. it adds stress points. archer doesn’t have a through hole which massively increases strength. and from personal experience adding more meat around a push fit adapter does not increase strength it is the tolerance which will increase the strength.
You guys realise that engineers can be multidisciplinary, right?
I work at a product design consultancy where we have multiple electro-mechanical engineers some with a background in EE and some with a background in ME. I also work with people that can write software and design electronics, and even a chemical engineer that develops software.
My man, as fellow engineers we understand that your experiences cross and that multidisciplinary qualities/interests are a thing. Your work seems very well done and we appreciate your passion for it aswell.
I was just making a joke about roles being reversed mainly to stealther who was bragging about his own vague accomplishments. As much as i do appreciate your work i would suggest taking a bit calmer approach and understanding it was merely a joke.
Im also sorry your product didnt receive as much enthousiasm here as you wished for, as someone who does these projects too out of passion it would be a big bummer to me too to receive this, which must be draining.
(Personally i do like your design and philosophy)
However if your product is good, make the investment yourself first (even though it is a lot of money) if nobody buys them you can allways sell them at the price you paid if they are good and you will be even for sure. Show pictures (of builds) and share socials, its one thing making a good product but the other battle is actually selling it and showing its strenghts. Unfortunately good products are not the way to succes, selling them is and its (for me unfortunately) just as important and the most risk involved part.
I seriously hope you find succes in your endeavours and if you need help on stuff feel free to contact me or people on this forum but always take it with a grain of salt.
(Plus engineers just like railing on other class engineers because they always think they can do it better.)
Sorry about that mate I got a bit defensive, this thread got pretty hostile quickly with people picking appart my design and about my engineering expertise.
I appreciate you as one of the only people asking constructive questions about the product and generally being positive about it. Thanks for the support
Let’s see what happens at the end of the month, if there isn’t enough people interested in the pre-order I may go ahead a manufacturer the first batch anyway.
from my quick maths a flipsky 63xx should be able to handle 145kg-290kg axial load.
thrust bearings were also considered by Etoxx, he also stated the motors are designed for axial loads
thats the forum for you, eat or be eaten lol
i for one have had zero issue with axial loads on these gears and the v1 are still putting up with my abuse
@Archer, I would love for you to be successful with your venture and am totally interested in what you are offering and could be a potential customer.
When I first read about it I got excited about the product and excited for your potential success but the BS reference really put a bad taste in my mouth, especially when it references two drive systems I own and I think are each great in their own way. By the way, you mentioned you would remove that reference but you still have it right in the original post here in this thread.
You mentioned that people were picking apart your design. Sorry but every vendor should always expect their design to be picked apart. Especially when it’s new and not yet widely proven. Honestly, the tone you started out with likely did not help.
You mentioned you have been testing it personally for six months. That’s awesome but have you had any other testers besides yourself? Like different riding styles, different motors, different forces at work.
I provide the following info in the hope that it might provide you some insight into a potential buyer’s perspective:
It would really help to see and hear at least some video of the drives running. Why don’t you make a video you talking about it and showing the fine points and show it in action. Can even just be on a bench. That way your potential customers also get to know you beyond a handle and some forum posts. I don’t know if you’ve considered that many people don’t just buy based on the product alone but on the relationship with the vendor. When that relationship is strong, people are much more likely to take a risk on a purchase.
For me personally, the discount is not worth mucking with the pre-order process. I’m not suggesting the discount is not enough but simply that I expect to see the product on the site and just order it and receive it. If you put it up there, I’ll buy a set but I do want to see some video of it in action and I want to feel like you’re going to be around for the long term to support it and provide parts.
In other words, give me the warm and fuzzy feeling so that I’m willing to take a risk on a completely new product and a new vendor.
I think Boardnamics has the only 3rd party drivetrain compatible with them, the clamp is pretty crazy
