Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 10-09-2025 Origin: Site
The difference in efficiency between cylindrical gear reducers and planetary gear reducers is mainly reflected in three aspects: transmission structure, power loss, and application scenarios. The specific comparisons are as follows:
Cylindrical gear reducer
Efficiency range : Single-stage transmission efficiency can reach 98%-99% (straight-tooth cylindrical gears are minimal due to line contact friction), and the multi-stage transmission efficiency is gradually reduced (such as the double-stage efficiency is about 94%-96%)
Source of loss : Mainly due to gear meshing friction and bearing resistance, the helical gear efficiency is slightly lower than that of spur gears (97%-98%)
Planetary gear reducer
Efficiency range : usually 85%-95% , due to the multi-gear meshing shunt power, the energy loss is large
Source of loss : complex meshing between planetary wheels and sun gears/rings, bearing friction and lubrication resistance
Structural Complexity
The cylindrical gear reducer has a simple structure, a direct single-stage transmission path, and low friction loss
Planetary gear reducers need multiple gears to work together, and power shunts lead to energy dispersion loss
Processing Accuracy Requirements
Planetary gears require high-precision grinding teeth (meshing accuracy ≤0.005mm) to reduce vibration losses, but the processing cost is high
Cylindrical gears have relatively low accuracy requirements, and ordinary gear hobbing can meet the needs
Preferential cylindrical gear reducer
Scenarios where are required and space allowshigh efficiency (such as conveyors, mixers)
Single-stage transmission ratio 3-5, multi-stage can reach more than 100 (but the volume is increased)
Preferential planetary gear reducer
Requires compact structure (30%-50% small size) or high torque density (such as robot joints, wind power equipment)
Sacrifice part of the efficiency for space and carrying capacity advantages
Lugraining impact : Both efficiency is affected by lubrication conditions. It is recommended to use L-CKD 320 lubricating oil to reduce friction loss.
Noise comparison : Planetary gears are usually loaded with multiple wheels, and the noise is usually lower than 65dB, which is better than cylindrical gears (75-85dB)
How to determine the rated load based on the model of soft tooth reducer
What factors are related to the transmission efficiency of WPDX135-40-3KW worm gear reducer
How to detect whether the NGW-L122-90 planetary reducer base settles
What materials can improve the base carrying capacity of the NBD710-35.5 planetary reducer
Expand and introduce the box structure of WS150-16-1 worm gear reducer
What factors affect the transmission efficiency of WS300-23.5-II worm gear reducer
Introduction to a cause of the failure of the WB100-D-23-0.55KW miniature cycloid reducer
How to replace the grease of WB1285-LD-2065-0.37KW/4 micro cycloid reducer
What are the disadvantages of arc gears compared to involute gears in high-speed transmission
Comparison of service life of hard tooth surface and soft tooth surface reducer
How to determine whether the alignment of the multi-stage reducer is good
What factors will affect the tooth surface roughness of the CWO100-63-YIII reducer worm
How to improve the wear resistance of CWO140-25-I worm gear reducer
NAD224-8-1 Does the installation of planetary deceleration require ambient temperature?
NAF355-4.5-1 How high temperature can the planetary gear reducer withstand?
Let me introduce the characteristics of the bevel gear of the B3SH04 reducer in detail
What are the differences in efficiency between cylindrical gear reducers and planetary gear reducers
What accessories need to be replaced during maintenance of WPS60-60-B worm gear reducer
How to check the wear of the tooth surface of the WPS80-50-A worm gear reducer