← All projects

Independent mechanism · Iterative redesign

Cycloidal Drive

Two documented iterations

A return to a failed Grade 9 project, rebuilt through two iterations to reduce assembly difficulty and mechanical complexity.

Image space reserved Iteration comparison
Reserved for bearing-based and static-pin versions shown side by side.

What the work demonstrates.

The cycloidal drive revisits a Grade 9 personal project that did not reach a successful outcome. Instead of hiding that attempt, this case study uses it as the starting point for a better mechanism.

The first new iteration used bearings at the contact interface. Testing the assembly exposed too much complexity and made construction difficult. The second iteration replaced those bearings with static pins and produced a workable result.

Engineering question

Replace a difficult bearing-based contact arrangement with a simpler static-pin solution without losing the mechanism’s intended motion.

Stages, iterations, and evidence.

  1. 01

    Earlier attempt

    Grade 9 personal project

    The original project did not complete the full design cycle, but it established the mechanism as a problem worth returning to with stronger CAD and prototyping skills.

  2. 02

    Iteration 1

    Bearing contact

    Bearings formed the contact surfaces around the disc. The approach increased part count, assembly difficulty, and overall complexity.

  3. 03

    Iteration 2

    Static-pin redesign

    Static pins replaced the bearing arrangement. The simpler architecture was easier to assemble and produced a working mechanism.

What the next evidence needs to answer.

  1. 01Which parts of the bearing-based design created unnecessary complexity?
  2. 02What changed in the static-pin version, and how was success evaluated?
  3. 03What should a future iteration quantify: load, efficiency, backlash, or durability?