Small 4-stroke, cordless drill gearbox, flywheel

  • Thread starter Thread starter thorpie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drill Flywheel
AI Thread Summary
A gearbox designed for an electric motor may not be suitable for a 4-stroke engine, even if both are rated at 750 watts, due to differences in power delivery and operational characteristics. The discussion highlights the need for a gearbox with a reduction ratio between 11:1 and 27:1 to achieve the desired output torque for a bicycle application. Flywheel mass plays a crucial role in dampening power pulses, acting as a shock absorber between the crankshaft and gears. Concerns are raised about the continuous force ratings of drill gearboxes, suggesting a safety factor should be considered. Accurate measurements of the bicycle wheel are essential, as discrepancies can significantly impact performance calculations.
thorpie
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I would like to know whether a gearbox (reducer) designed for an electric motor is suitable for the same powered 4-stroke engine.
The most common, and therefore inexpensive, gearboxes are on drills, either cordless or wired.
A small 4 stroke engine gives a maximum power of 750 watts. Would a gearbox off a 750 watt drill be suitable? or does the 4 stroke engine only powering 1/4 of the time mean that a gearbox off a 3000 watt electrical tool is needed?
I also assume that the flywheel mass will have some effect on this, could anyone explain what effect the flywheel mass would have?
Literature on cordless drills don't generally show a wattage, for the larger ones a torque of 30 nm is shown. The small 1 hp (750 watt) 4-strokes have a maximum torque of 1 nm. As I am seeking a reduction of 27:1, which would give an output torque of 26 nm, I was wondering whether these gearboxes would be OK
Many Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What is your application?
 
Bicycle, but I am aiming at the best assistance possible from 1 litre of fuel over 1,000 km. I need the right terrain, with just 2 gradients, 0.8% downhilll (unpowered, 90% of the time) and 5% uphill (powered, 10% of the time). With the right terrain this provides a constant speed of 21 km/hr, so the engine has increased the speed from 16 km/hr to 21 km/hr and overcome the tyranny of hills.
I am also having trouble identifying a jump start clutch at the back wheel - I can't afford to consistently lose the energy driving a chain and half a clutch away from the bike hub. The average assistance provided is only 40 watts, so a loss of 10 watts is huge, a loss of 20 watts means you may as well not bother with the engine!
 
Just double check the speeds that both are required to run at.
 
Engine at 4500 - 5000 rpm (BSFC of 408 g/litre). 26" external diameter bicycle wheel at 168.7 rpm gives 21 km/hr. Reduction needed 26.7:1.
I can get 2.5:1 from the chain drive, if necessary. So I need somewhere in the range 11:1 to 27:1 from the gearbox. Single stage planetary's go up to 12:1, unsure what they are in drills.
 
thorpie said:
I also assume that the flywheel mass will have some effect on this, could anyone explain what effect the flywheel mass would have?

From a practical standpoint, the flywheel dampens the power pulses. Kind of a "shock absorber" between the crankshaft and gears.
 
Just a thought... a gearbox from a drill is likely not rated for continuous maximum force. You might want to include a healthy safety factor into your working load.
 
thorpie said:
Engine at 4500 - 5000 rpm (BSFC of 408 g/litre). 26" external diameter bicycle wheel at 168.7 rpm gives 21 km/hr. Reduction needed 26.7:1.
I can get 2.5:1 from the chain drive, if necessary. So I need somewhere in the range 11:1 to 27:1 from the gearbox. Single stage planetary's go up to 12:1, unsure what they are in drills.
You may want to measure the bicycle wheel, the measurement on the sidewall doesn't usually reflect the actual diameter of a complete wheel. I just thought I'd point that out because that would greatly effect your calculations.
 
Back
Top