dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

Very un-scientific post, and meaningless to those who have dealt with them in battle, yet I found it kind of cool. I got my Asiatam 3:1 low-profile gearboxes yesterday.

I had already broken in my HL steel "stock" ratio gearboxes, and decided to "test" both those and the Asiatam 3:1's, which have not been broken in. Both outside of the vehicles, turning nothing but their gears.

A 1.2V battery will turn and run the 3:1's, while the stock gearboxes won't even flinch. At 2.4V the standard gearboxes can turn and run ok.

I understood prior why when battling more torque would be handy, especially after taking "hits", but pretty cool IMO, even though I'm not into battling. With the weight of the vehicle, tracks, and maneuvering, I can see a huge advantage with the 3:1's.

As a review, just in looking at them, they appear to be well constructed. Much less slop than the HL ones, and a thicker housing. Only downside I see (potentially) is that the mounting surface is greatly reduced, so your options of using custom screw locations are much more limited than the standard gearboxes.

johnmar78

with RC tank, torque is more fun than speed. because, you ar epalying tanks not nitro cars. By teh way, if run too fast, it increases the risk of track throwing.....

pcsguy88

I'm confused when you say "stock steel" boxes. Do you mean the metal ones that come in the HL's? Those are white metal and are complete crap friction wise. The actual machined black steel gearboxes from RCCommand are excellent, silent and very little friction.

dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, sorry, stock as in HL cast pot metal (I assume that's what they are) gears.

From our calculations previous, (although the torque is nice) the PzIII top speed based on what figures are out there, is actually near dead-on with the stock HL gear boxes.

No need to get into the engine RPM through the transmissions, I understand that, just that if the 3:1's run as fast as the stock HL gearboxes, they are close to correct scale speed.

philipat

Do the 3:1s run as fast as the stock HLs? I was under the impression that they did not.

blitzkrieg65

The 3:1 do not run as fast as the stock HL but you have more power to climb and a realistic drive look & feel! But you can add larger motors like the Graupner speed 400's!

Here is a video of my comparison with the stock HL Metal gears in one P-III and the 3:1 in anohter P-III


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfSaT0i4Udw


The Blitz






RCTAnkWars.com

dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

Even with the 3:1's, some sort of momentum adds realism, eh Blitz?

It will be awhile before I get mine up and running, so I won't know what 3:1 "looks" like until then.

The stock gearboxes certainly don't give you an idea of an actual tank.

philipat

Blitz, will those fit in a PzIII with larger motors like the Graupners? I had thought about that, but I thought that I read on here somewhere that they wouldn't fit. The other option might be Bill's steel 3:1 gears with Graupners.

pcsguy88

I have Bill's normal steel boxes in the Panzer III and his 3:1 steel gears with Graupners in the KV. So far I am not noticing the increased torque on the KV, but it's such a big, long tank and the sprockets are in the rear, making it a pain to turn in a circle. Seriously debating replacing with Asiatam in the KV.

blitzkrieg65

Here you go Philipat! These are the Mato 3:1 brass Gearbox that I am carring now, and I am also stocking the Graupner Speed 400 motors with pinion gear as part of the price! Yes, these fit,, check it out!

The Blitz

RCTankWars.com

philipat

Blitz, awesome! Thanks for the picture. It speaks volumes. So, how do those Mato 3:1 gearboxes compare to the Asiatam 3:1s? They look like the exact same setups.

pcsguy: why trade RCC's steel 3:1s for the Asiatam 3:1s? Seems like you would get the same performance from them if they're running the same gearing. Maybe you should try different motors instead? Or, maybe I didn't understand.

YHR

I didn't know he had the steel gears in a 3:1 set up. You should diffently see a difference between regular gears and 3:1. The greater torque allows you to slowly move up to speed, and gone are the Jack rabbit starts.

dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

Was just thinking the same myself. 3:1 is 3:1, only difference (assuming the ratio is accurate) possible is the motor. (RPM)

Perry S.

Another good thing about 3:1 gearboxes is that they cut the stupid 'recoil' by 1/3. It is almost tolerable now.

Perry

thomasjohnmurphy

I find these 3:1 are fine with the stock motors. Maybe if you have a KT with metal tracks,

pcsguy88

I was told that the more gears, the higher torque and the RCC ones are just different sized gears crammed into the original boxes, the asiatam/mato boxes have more gears. The KV-1 runs 10x's better with the RCC boxes, but I can't tell if it's better than the normal ratio steel boxes in my Panzer III. The PIII absolutely glides along, reacting to the tiniest input. The KV tends to get a bit jumpy during turning exercises and it has Graupner 400's that ran in my Bulldog for a year. They are both over 10lb tanks, the differences being the length, tread width and sprocket position. I wish I had a way test these parts without buying then first.

Perry S.

It's more than just number of gears as you must take into account the number of teeth on each of those gears. I guess you could use that as a rule of thumb though. I don't have the new Mato GB's so I can't comment on them. I don't know why they call the Mato boxes 3:1 because it insinuates they have a 1:1 for that same design. Fot those, 3:1 has no meaning, especially because the drive motors are smaller.

Perry

pcsguy88

I was told the teeth obviously control the ratio, but the more gears used to reduce the ratio, the more torque that will be produced. Is this correct?

Perry S.

Yes PCS, we might be talking past each other on this one but I think what you are saying is generally right, especially given the constraint of using existing gearboxes. For example, with the HL design adding another gear will reduce the final drive ratio. The 'added' gear has 3 times the teeth on the larger spur than the smaller, thus you have a 3:1 gearbox.

Perry

dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

You can do it either way. Utilizing more gears to "up" the ratio, or simply add more teeth, assuming you have the space.

No different than an automotive manual transmission or ring and pinion gear setup.

3:1 is 3:1 unless someone isn't being honest/thorough. 3:1 means 3 input revolutions to one output revolution.

Very easy to test in my case, I've got the stock HL steel boxes out, the RCC steel 3:1 boxes sitting out, and the asiatam 3:1's sitting out. If they aren't exactly 3:1 though, I'll have to eyeball the fraction.

I could see one maker taking 2.75:1 and rounding to 3:1, and another taking 3.25:1 and rounding down to 3:1 for ease of advertising.

pcsguy88

So is it safe to say all gearboxes called 3:1 in our hobby are not created equal? Or does the final output ratio dictate performance no matter what is inside the gearboxes? Like I said, I was told the thing about the # of gears and have no way to verify or even test since the RCC box is my first 3:1. I guess if I popped it into my PIII, I'd be able to record the difference between the two RCC steel boxes, but still no clue on the Asiatam/Mato ones.

thanks for your help Perry.

Edit: Looks like dyeager answered before I asked.

Perry S.

But 3:1 does not mean this as it applies to our tank gearboxes. It simply means that the gear train has an increase in ratio by 3. Since the stock HL GB is 40:1 the '3:1' upgrade turns them into 120:1 ratio. So 120 rev's at the motor turn into 1 rev at the sprocket.

That's why I think it is odd that other manufacturers make 3:1 GB's. Are they basing the 3:1 on the HL design as a baseline?

Also, it gets a little murky when they put smaller motors on the '3:1' GB's. More torque from the geartrain, less from the motor. The result at the output shaft is somewhere in the middle as far as torque goes.

What we really need is an rpm and torque reading on the gearboxes.

Perry

dyeager535

My Feedback: (1)

Alright, I'm not sure where they are measuring, but the input/output is DEFINITELY not 3:1, and I should have realized that since the other boxes can't possibly be 1:1.

I started counting the steel box input vs. output revolutions, but the output didn't even rotate 1/4 turn before I was at 6 pinion rotations.

I would theorize that the output RPM's are three times lower than the 1:1 box, but I don't believe the RPM difference between the various black/white/metal cap motors is that large. I also don't recall anyone saying their tanks were three times as slow with the 3:1's as the 1:1's, or even half as fast, since the engine RPM's are different if I recall the engine test thread correctly.

pcsguy88

Well, $80 lesson learned. Be careful buying the RCC 3:1 steel gears. The large gear that the pinion makes contact with is not drilled\machined correctly and visibly wobbles. This wobble robs the motor of power and has begun to chew up my pinions. These boxes are handmade from the normal boxes (you can see where the brass support bar has been milled down to fit the larger gears and other signs these are not precision made). The normal RCC "Steel" boxes are spectacular and I have never had an issue with them, but the set of steel 3:1s I got are crap. Now the question is do I get the Mato or the Asiatam boxes as replacements?

Phil, are your boxes Mato? On their site, all gears are brass and yours look like the asiatam ones with silver metal contacting the brass gears.

philipat

I've been eyeballing all three of those options - steel, Mato and Asiatam 3:1s. Interesting note on the steel ones. Any word from Bill if perhaps you got a defective set?

Phil - have you used the Mato and Asiatam low profile 3:1s? They look like the exact same setups with the exception of the silver gears noted by pcsguy. I'd be interested in your thoughts comparing the two if you used both.