Missing Innovation?

[Sitting Duck]

You do make a good point that there's a lot of work yet to be done in getting the existing boxes running nicely.

V2 motor cage would be nice, and why havent we made qd springs mandatory already?

That v2 was the weird Elephant HK33 thingy but never caught on

13 years ago, took me a while to find it, though posted it before on here

6mm bushings shows it's old...

http://www.france-airsoft.fr/forum/index.php?showtopic=74525

Remember when Specna Arms made their first QC M4's, like Krytac

you still had to remove the friggin' box from receiver to change it

(motor out, grip out, box out of receiver - might as well just open the damn thing up)

until SA sorted out their receivers to allow spring change in situ

But we are getting there, seems as each year goes by the "out of box" bar gets raised

half decent seals, full metal or part metal rack pistons, even slightly better wiring & possible mosfet

even the Cyma budget lines are switching to better blue tappets than clear hard tappets in v2's

maybe not quite more bang for our buck, but a better quality bang perhaps like the TV's as std

with the 200:100 I THINK the ratio is about the same as 18:1 or 18.65:1

with the 300:100 I THINK the ratio is about 22:1

BUT DON'T QUOTE ME - I got both SOMEWHERE and sure i tested one as a 7.5 turns of bevel to 1 sector rotation

which multiplied by 3 = just over 22 or 22.5:1

I've seen people say these sets are more like 32:1 but that is bollox

coz the 32:1 set has the rear sector teeth the exact same size/height as sector's piston teeth @ 3mm pitch

and you must use the half width piston for 32:1's and get the shimming fucking exact

(or teeth can catch/get in the way of half width teeth on piston rack)

So no the helicals are not 32:1's but std or just a smidge more torque @ 22:1 aprox imho

so unless they release a snappier 13:1 or 16:1 set

I can only see them going in maybe a DMR you want to quieten down a fraction

looking at TWG...

200:100

https://www.taiwangun.com/gears/steel-gears-set-100-200-helical-super-torque-kublai?from=listing&campaign-id=19

has a 10 tooth bevel

where as the 300:100

https://www.taiwangun.com/gears/steel-gears-set-100-300-helical-high-torque-kublai?from=listing&campaign-id=19

has a 9 tooth bevel which will effect the ratio

probably 18.65 x 1.1 = 20.5:1 maybe ???

(assuming the 200:100 is like std ratio)

But the 200 & 300 sets look the same at first glance on the spur/sector - just a 10 or 9 tooth bevel

anyway - I would want a snappier helical set than what is on offer at the moment

 

[John_W]

Airsoft has moved on a bit in the 18 years I have been playing. Hop technology has improved over the standard single nub. Mosfets have become fairly standard. The biggest change has been batteries. Compare a LiPo with a NiCad for size. 

I think what we are seeing is slow and steady rather than big jumps.

For me, modularity and tolerances would be a big thing. A lot of us see swimming as a bit of a dark art. Being able to upgrade a gearbox easily would be a benefit. I did use a Modify modular gearset a few years back, and being able to drop the gears in pre shimmed in a cage was very easy.

 

[Iceni]

There's a problem with those single helicial sets @Sitting Duck, They cause one side of the gearbox case to act as a thrust bearing as single cut gears will have a natural draw direction due to axial loading. Effectively they act as a screw as well as a gear. Double helical doesn't do this, in fact it self centres.

It's why people who try those single cut gears run into all sorts of shimming issues. The motor is trying to constantly adjust it's position, and the gears are pushing the gearbox cases.

To run DHG's you would need to set a motor height and then set the bevel to that with an adjustment screw on the bevel shaft, The bevel could be flatter. D type pinions reduce the need for anything special from motor manufacturers. All 3 gears would need to be dropped in together, but outside of that it should be a perfectly possible gear set to run.

Advantages - Smoother power transmission, Quieter, Less prone to tooth breakage.
Disadvantages - Harder to setup, Requires better gearbox castings and tighter tolerances on the gear placement and holding.

 

 

[rj1986]

I always hoped someone would revive Lonex’s electro magnetic gearbox concept. 

 

[PopRocket123]

Airsoft has moved on a bit in the 18 years I have been playing. Hop technology has improved over the standard single nub. Mosfets have become fairly standard. The biggest change has been batteries. Compare a LiPo with a NiCad for size. 

I think what we are seeing is slow and steady rather than big jumps.

For me, modularity and tolerances would be a big thing. A lot of us see swimming as a bit of a dark art. Being able to upgrade a gearbox easily would be a benefit. I did use a Modify modular gearset a few years back, and being able to drop the gears in pre shimmed in a cage was very easy.

So those preshimmed gearsets work? I've seen them but haven't tried them out. 

The double helical gears sound great

 

[heroshark]

I'm just happy to have gbbs that don't crap out in the cold. I would like to see a gas in gun gbbr with cut of on empty ,aug would be nice. The only reason I run an AR is for the tm recoil functionality and reliable cold weather performance. 

 

[Iceni]

I can only see them going in maybe a DMR you want to quieten down a fraction

I think you are misunderstanding what you can do with gear cutting. The ratio isn't the issue.

You could make a 13:1 DHG set just as easy as a 22:1 - The final ratio would look crazy on paper but as it's the circumference of the gear that counts not the number of teeth it would not matter. More teeth is just better for power transmission and keeping noise down. Those big ratio SHG sets are taking advantage of the shallow hobbing that is possible with SHG allowing the circumference of the gears to be pushed outside of the possibilities of standard hobbing. This isn't what I want, I want standard ratio's with standard circumferences done with a better hobbing method.

 

[hitmanNo2]

I'm just happy to have gbbs that don't crap out in the cold. I would like to see a gas in gun gbbr with cut of on empty ,aug would be nice.

GHK AUG with CO2 should do the trick.

 

[Druid799]

GHK AUG with CO2 should do the trick.

Some sites don’t allow Co2 

 

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

This isn't really an innovation, but personally I'd like to see more sites blur the lines between woodland and CQB, and to take advantage (and in some cases, I really do mean take advantage) of local planning considerations which allow for the erection of temporary structures (think shipping container villages, plywood killhouses) outdoors, without worrying about relatively primo real estate. I think this is magnitudes more achievable and more beneficial then any other gizmos. I'd like to see more sites do "community outreach" via laser tag or  "soft-airsoft" or what have you to help nurture the younger generation - today's lasertag birthday boy is tomorrow's balls to the walls airsofter.

edit: this may be controversial but I think heavy bb's are increasing in popularity, and high rof builds aren't going anywhere unless sites start banning them via ROF testing alongside chrono. I wonder if we just embrace both - imagine semi auto being replaced with an ultra-fast 5 round burst? Mags could be capped at 150 bbs for the sake of "realism" and off we go. Overkill is a legitimate consideration, but if we are talking about the future, it is still a social construct after all and attitudes vary, and of course change. my 2p. 

 

[Adolf Hamster]

Given what folk do in "semi only" environments i dont think encouraging high rof is a good idea.

Yes it has some application but it tends to be mostly used for the purposes of "punishing the cheetarz" which isnt what we should be encouraging.

Tbh if we're gonna be encouraging a culture of any kind it should be the simplest fundamentals of good honest play.

 

[hitmanNo2]

Some sites don’t allow Co2 

On what grounds?

 

[alxndrhll]

It's unfortunate that it'd be deemed an innovation, but at this point the thing I'd like to see more than anything is significantly improved quality control. Reviews of RIF feel almost entirely moot to me at this point due to the general lack of consistency when it comes to QC. While aware we'd pay for the privilege it's a cost I'd be more than happy to pay if the product at the end of it is improved.

 

[heroshark]

GHK AUG with CO2 should do the trick.

Reason I say gas in gun for cheaper lighter mags with better capacity and less maintenance.

 

[hitmanNo2]

Ah yeah.  I didn't read your post properly.  I think you would have to have something with a remote line like the Sun Project M4s or Escort MP5 but no bolt stop.

 

[Sitting Duck]

I think you are misunderstanding what you can do with gear cutting. The ratio isn't the issue.

You could make a 13:1 DHG set just as easy as a 22:1 - The final ratio would look crazy on paper but as it's the circumference of the gear that counts not the number of teeth it would not matter. More teeth is just better for power transmission and keeping noise down. Those big ratio SHG sets are taking advantage of the shallow hobbing that is possible with SHG allowing the circumference of the gears to be pushed outside of the possibilities of standard hobbing. This isn't what I want, I want standard ratio's with standard circumferences done with a better hobbing method.

As said it was to do with the noise reduction putting these in a DMR

The ratio is about the same as std or just a smidge more

eg: 18:1 to say 22:1 - they are certainly not 32:1's like some people have claimed

So we are looking at "roughly" say 20:1 ratio on the helical sets

so the ratio would not appeal to me for a std AEG or a mild snappy one

sure I could use a High Speed Motor, but the amp draw would increase blah blah blah etc...

So with the 200 or 300 option being 18:1 or say 22:1 I can see me personally using it to pull a heavier spring

and listed a DMR example, not just for ratio but to utilise the smoother gear meshing to hopefully reduce noise

(which could be of benefit to not drawn attention to your actual position very quickly from shrilly gears

- though very little as pinion/bevel is still straight cut, but as Tesco says: Every little Helps)

Now on a DMR with say 22:1 - I'd probably aim for some precock of 75% upwards

but the precock is not important in "shrill" terms, as the gun still cycles 1 complete revolution

(just where the thing actually stops dictated by the pre-cock or end of cycle position)

So for each shot the gears would cycle a full revolution

so you might want that full revolution to be as smooth or quiet/non-shrilly as possible

Yes you could say or use these gears in any AEG, perhaps not such a huge benefit in a CQB build

but then if stealth is req then gas pistol or knife is maybe the preferred option or consideration

TL-DR, main point of helical gears is smoother meshing or transfer of power/energy

so in light of this, I personally can only see 18:1 or 22:1 sets going in a DMR perhaps ???

Yes the gear ratio is a factor, for fully compressing a m130

(not partially compressing a m120/130 like in SS setup)

But mostly due to slightly quieter/smoother meshing which can be of use in a sneaky DMR maybe

if they did Higher Speed Helical gears, then yeah I'd dive them a go for sure in a snappy build

even though as said, they have the bespoke bevel so screwed for a quick replacement if bevel busts

The ratio & the calculation method of counting the number of turns the bevel to 1 rotation of sector

is a rough ball park figure to establish the ratio of a std gear set

which imho should include the 200 & 300:1 sets

(dunno about a 4 gear set, but perhaps it might also apply)

The bevel gear meshing to pinion is still cut straight

so it still applies that the bevel ratio to pinion is the same as a straight set

then the bevel rotates say 6.25 turns to one revolution on the sector

multiply by 3 to arrive at say 18.65:1 ratio

So this method of bevel to sector rotations

can be easily used to quickly identify if you have a 18:1 set or a 16:1

(most 16's are 17.25:1 but VFC spurs produce a 16.5:1 ratio somehow)

& if you have a 12:1 or 13:1 set

(of course if the gears are stamped - then that is a good indication too)

but the method does work imho & I can't see this not applying to the helical set

as the gears are all cycling together the same way as a reg straight set

and on the sector the teeth do not protrude like on a 32:1 sector

where the sector gear has very large protruding 30 teeth meshing with the spur/step gear

on the 32:1 set the spur has 11 inner teeth

on the 18:1 set the spur has 20 inner teeth

on most 16:1 sets the spur still has 20 inner teeth

but less teeth on the outer edge compared to 18:1 spur's

The 200 or 300 set seem to have say 45 outer teeth

the 18:1 set has around 39 outer teeth on spur & 20 inner teeth

the 16:1 set has around 35 outer teeth on spur & mostly 20 inner teeth

(why 18 & 16's use the same type sector gears & SHS DSG's can be used with either) 

So a 16:1 spur has "spikey" teeth at the edge, but actually a couple less

but 16:1 VFC's have 21 teeth on some of their odd spring loaded 16:1 spurs

(and probably why you seem get a slightly faster 16:1 ratio on VFC's)

View attachment 64196

(weird gear sets and sprung loaded crap is not that wise over shimming to exact position imho)

another TL-DR - point being the ratio change is "mostly" dictated or altered

depending on the spur/step gear actual gear teeth

(and of course the sector being machined to match)

some of these minor differences are hard to spot at first glance

and if people wish to count teeth and work out the maths - that's fine

but the bevel to sector ratio thingy does tend to work quite well as a quick easy way to work out

or confirm the actual ratio of a gear set - eg: 18 or 16:1 or 13 or 12:1

and as far as I can tell I can see no real reason why the same method can't be applied to helical sets 

Now I do have a set of 200 & 300's somewhere in a box and I'm positive when I tested them

using the bevel/sector method I arrived at say 22:1 and maybe a bit more/less

(perhaps near 18 or maybe 24:1 - but certainly nowhere near 32:1 ratio some claim they equate to)

if anybody has a 200 or 300 set to hand then please confirm the bevel/sector turn ratio

I can't be arsed to go looking through boxes, it looks like there is say 45 & 21 teeth on a helical spur gear

compared to say 39 & 11 teeth on a 32:1 spur gear

so no I don't think the helical's are anything like a 32:1 set

but 22:1 give or take a bit depending on 200 or 300 set

Ultimate TL-DR - would be a fucking lot easier if they stopped this 200 or 300 bollox

and just went with the normal ratio crap stating the sets as 22:1 instead

 

[Adolf Hamster]

On what grounds?

Because it sounds scary

And we all know that all co2 powered airsoft guns are hot af and no green gas gun is capable of firing above 0.8j.

Bet they dont even pull the suppressors off m23's to check for extensions......

 

[Druid799]

On what grounds?

Black ops in Bristol don’t allow it at either of there sites , can’t remember exact reason but they did have one .