The question is quite broad, as there are different methods for setting various types of gears and complexity of gear assemblies, but all gears have a few things in common.

When assembling a pair of gears, what is a good method for setting and checking their mesh?

Why is there so much emphasis on the tooth contact pattern for bevel gears in the assembled condition and not so for cylindrical gears, etc?

Bevel gears must be assembled in a specific way to ensure smooth running and optimum load distribution between gears. While it is certainly true that the "setting" or "laying out" of a pair of bevel gears is more complicated than laying out a pair of spur gears, it is also true that following the correct procedure can make the task much easier. You cannot install bevel gears in the same manner as spur and helical gears and expect them to behave and perform as well; to optimize the performance of any two bevel gears, the gears must be positioned together so that they run smoothly without binding and/or excessive backlash.

The Tiger Team from Hoerbiger looks for ways to cut waste and improve throughput in the company's assembly cell.

By virtue of collected anecdotal accounts, equations and problem solving, balancing is discussed as more math and common sense, and less smoke and mirrors.

Our experts comment on reverse engineering herringbone gears and contact pattern optimization.

I am currently writing a design procedure for the correct method for setting up bevel gears in a gearbox for optimum performance...

Bevel gear systems are particularly sensitive to improper assembly. Slight errors in gear positioning can turn a well-designed, quality manufactured gear set into a noisy, prone-to-failure weak link in your application.