AndyMark alert! Interesting new stuff [Archive]

ironbears

10-12-2009, 18:53

Looks interesting to me. The thing that caught my attention was this picture:

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-33833170891817/Beta-2010-electronics.jpg

Is there any information released on this? I had a quick check on FIRST and could not find anything. This seems like a neat replacement of the driver station.

Chris is me

10-12-2009, 18:54

That's the 2010 beta test kit. It was on Bill's Blog a few weeks ago.

JesseK

10-12-2009, 19:06

And here I thought their inexpensive rivets were great...!

Chris_Elston

11-12-2009, 13:14

http://www.andymark.biz/rivets.html

Rivets? Did you do that for US? Awe...you're so nice AndyMark...At the rate we go we'll need 4 boxes of 500 to just get started.

Jonathan Norris

11-12-2009, 17:09

can we have CAN this year!?!?

Peter Matteson

11-12-2009, 17:20

Can't wait to use more of those wonderful hex bearings, they make things so easy.

McGurky

11-12-2009, 18:36

Does anyone have the weight difference in the ribbon cable vs. what is provided in the KOP? Otherwise some great new stuff. :D

R.C.

12-12-2009, 01:12

Does anyone have the weight difference in the ribbon cable vs. what is provided in the KOP? Otherwise some great new stuff. :D

The Cable in the KOP weighs about ~.5 lbs and the ribbon cable is way way lighter. Specs and others things I have no clue about.

-RC

Tom Line

12-12-2009, 10:04

can we have CAN this year!?!?

No one can say that the rules will positively allow it, however every indication we have been given (we being the beta teams) is that yes, can will likely be available to be used.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG however, it will not be directly supported - it will be done through a series of plugins written by a person volunteering their personal time to get it in place. In addition, a new black jaguar may or may not be availble, as well as multiple firmware updates for the gray jaguars.

Using CAN this year will not be a trival pursuit - it will take some effort for the team who decides to use it.

That and more info on programming languages for this year can be found on the beta test forums on the official first 2010 website, linked here:

http://forums.usfirst.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Scroll to the bottom of the page to find the beta forums.

Mike Copioli

12-12-2009, 12:47

Using CAN this year will not be a trivial pursuit - it will take some effort for the team who decides to use it..

I agree that CAN is not trivial but name one thing about the control system that is. I do believe that it will be much easier to implement than expected if devices like the 2CAN are deemed legal. The 2CAN was designed with both rookie and veteran teams in mind.

Tom Line

12-12-2009, 14:04

I agree that CAN is not trivial but name one thing about the control system that is. I do believe that it will be much easier to implement than expected if devices like the 2CAN are deemed legal. The 2CAN was designed with both rookie and veteran teams in mind.

We may have to beg you to come over some time and show us how it works - we could probably hit you from over here at the Romeo Engine Plant :D

IndySam

13-01-2010, 22:49

might be the coolest thing ever. (http://www.andymark.biz/am-0576.html)

Eugene Fang

13-01-2010, 23:02

might be the coolest thing ever. (http://www.andymark.biz/am-0576.html)

Double Doozy -- I love the name.

Akash Rastogi

13-01-2010, 23:31

The double doozy just made my design so much simpler....holy crap.

AWESOME.

s_forbes

01-07-2010, 16:41

Surprised I haven't seen this anywhere on CD yet: http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

Not something I would want to use, but I'll bet many teams will love being able to purchase a complete drive assembly. As usual, it comes with many awesome options!

Chris is me

01-07-2010, 18:49

I think it looks really cool. My only concern would be if your CG was off to the geared / chained side, then you might have only one CIM on the ground at a time. For that reason I would probably gear drive AND chain drive my module (Goes from 5.4 pounds to 8.4 per side though). Regardless I'm seriously considering it for 2011, with hex output shafts.

Akash Rastogi

01-07-2010, 18:52

I was following it since I saw AM post up sketches on facebook. I was really happy to see it and the high level of engineering quality involved.

As with any system that you purchase, there are pros and cons, such as the Swerve Drive from Team221 llc.

11 will most likely purchase one this summer.

Tom Line

02-07-2010, 01:32

In looking at that (I admit I was intrigued by how nice it looks) I noticed it has the center shaft set up for a nano and a single cim drive.

It would be REALLY nice if they expanded so you could put a cim on both sides of the center shaft. You could have the option of taking the nano gears out of the ends and using them to use two cims to drive the center shaft.

Then you could use the chain shown here to power one end, and have a sprocket on the center wheel to power the other end.

ttldomination

02-07-2010, 11:05

Anyone know why they choose to make it 31" long as compared to a closer 37" with maybe a wide option as well?

Emiller8

02-07-2010, 12:13

11 will most likely purchase one this summer.

Ya, we are definitely getting that. Pretty much has already been decided.

yara92

04-07-2010, 16:06

AndyMark hat in Jerusalem

Billfred

04-07-2010, 22:01

Anyone know why they choose to make it 31" long as compared to a closer 37" with maybe a wide option as well?

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

R.C.

05-07-2010, 01:28

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

Well I don't understand the shipping, doesn't AM currently ship their C-base at 35".

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0202.html

Why not make the this rail the same length? Or maybe the 2011 game asks for a smaller sizing box :p

-RC

EricH

05-07-2010, 01:37

Or maybe the 2011 game asks for a smaller sizing box :p

-RC
Which 2011 game: A, B, C, or D (or whatever designation the GDC is using)?:p

Jeff 801

05-07-2010, 01:39

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

Mr.G

05-07-2010, 07:16

Billfred

05-07-2010, 08:17

Well I don't understand the shipping, doesn't AM currently ship their C-base at 35".

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0202.htmlThey do--but going down to 31 may allow them to squeeze it into a cheaper box (or get a cheaper shipping rate). That said, I think Jeff may have the better concept.

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. You'll still make some trade-offs (especially if the current GDC direction of bumper zone rules continues), but there's nothing stopping you in theory from going down this road.

JB987

05-07-2010, 16:23

I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?

Center is dropped .13" according to specs found below:

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

Andy Baker

05-07-2010, 18:37

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

Yes, this is the main reason. The center-to-center distance from the center of the front to back wheel is 27.5". This distance seems to work well with a 4wd 8" Mecanum setup (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?pid=4331880&id=183701158229). I predict that this setup will be used many times for applications outside of <em>FIRST</em> Robotics Competition setups.

If the demand is high for this type of setup, then we can vary the length of this tube.

I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?

Center is dropped .13" according to specs found below:

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

Yep, the center drop is 0.13".

They do--but going down to 31 may allow them to squeeze it into a cheaper box (or get a cheaper shipping rate). That said, I think Jeff may have the better concept.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. You'll still make some trade-offs (especially if the current GDC direction of bumper zone rules continues), but there's nothing stopping you in theory from going down this road.

This design decision has no bearing nor any result from any shipping or GDC decisions (at least, not that I know of). As mentioned above, this setup makes a very clean drive base for people who want to make a simple drive system for their application, whatever that is.

Thank you for all of the input.

Sincerely,
Andy

Dale

07-07-2010, 18:02

I, for one, would vote for a longer verison of these nifty rails that doesn't result in the wheels being outside of the frame boundry. That would make attaching bumpers easier. I guess the wheels would stay where they are and the rail would extend another 3" front and back. Teams could always cut them off if they didn't need that extra material.

Ideally, without concern for AndyMark's SKUs, it would be great to have rails optimized for 4", 6" and 8" wheels at FRC lengths.

Alex Cormier

07-07-2010, 18:11

I, for one, would vote for a longer verison of these nifty rails that doesn't result in the wheels being outside of the frame boundry. That would make attaching bumpers easier.

Yeah, will AM be selling some bracketry to attach bumpers legally once we all know the rules?

IndySam

23-07-2010, 20:45

If you though AM's new introductions weren't enough, then ......

Tri-Lambda Drive Platform am-0666 (http://www.andymark.biz/am-0666.html)

Bob Steele

26-07-2010, 17:04

If you though AM's new introductions weren't enough, then ......

Tri-Lambda Drive Platform am-0666 (http://www.andymark.biz/am-0666.html)

This must be expected to be used for off-season activity.
Unless the rules change drastically this is over the $$$ limit for a single purchase.

It looks like fun though...

Akash Rastogi

26-07-2010, 17:07

I don't know guys, I was much more interested in this...

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0654.html

AdamHeard

26-07-2010, 17:23

This must be expected to be used for off-season activity.
Unless the rules change drastically this is over the $$$ limit for a single purchase.

It looks like fun though...

There is only so much money to be made from FIRST, and I know AndyMark has been venturing into other product lines. I imagine this is geared as a general purpose mobility platform and not specifically for FRC use.

Dale

26-07-2010, 17:44

With regard to bumper mounting and longer Nano Tubes, I emailed Andy Baker about this and got this reply:

Thank you for this note. We are working on a bumper attachment design that is efficient, simple, and effective. If we can't come up with a good solution for this, then we will offer a longer version of the same tube, as you are requesting.

Sincerely,
Andy

Chris is me

26-07-2010, 17:51

I'm interested in the weight of the Toughbox Mini versus the Toughbox before getting super duper excited about it. :P

Andy Baker

26-07-2010, 17:58

I'm interested in the weight of the Toughbox Mini versus the Toughbox before getting super duper excited about it. :P

Toughbox Mini weight: 1.94 pounds
Toughbox weight: 2.38 pounds

So, if 2 gearboxes are used on the robot, then 0.88 pounds are saved if Toughbox Minis are used. This weight savings is the main reason why we are calling it "mini".

Sincerely,
Andy

AdamHeard

26-07-2010, 18:10

Toughbox Mini weight: 1.94 pounds
Toughbox weight: 2.38 pounds

So, if 2 gearboxes are used on the robot, then 0.88 pounds are saved if Toughbox Minis are used. This weight savings is the main reason why we are calling it "mini".

Sincerely,
Andy

I can't clearly see from the pictures there, but what is the purpose of the finned housing?

DonRotolo

26-07-2010, 18:14

Very cool testing video, too. Perhaps a little excessive, but that Mark seems to be a sadist when it comes to machinery...;)

Andy Baker

26-07-2010, 18:15

I can't clearly see from the pictures there, but what is the purpose of the finned housing?

These look much like cooling fins, but as you know, they are obviously not. We have gotten this question often.

I wanted to support the motor fully AND provide strength to the motor mounting screws. The side of the housing (without the fins) is as close to the CIM motor mounting screws and CIM Gear as they can be. Then, the fins are present to provide the full face of the CIM motor with support, so it does not wiggle any. So, with the CIM motor securely mounted and supported, it is a nice setup.

Thanks for asking,
Andy

AdamHeard

26-07-2010, 18:24

These look much like cooling fins, but as you know, they are obviously not. We have gotten this question often.

I wanted to support the motor fully AND provide strength to the motor mounting screws. The side of the housing (without the fins) is as close to the CIM motor mounting screws and CIM Gear as they can be. Then, the fins are present to provide the full face of the CIM motor with support, so it does not wiggle any. So, with the CIM motor securely mounted and supported, it is a nice setup.

Thanks for asking,
Andy

Ah, that's good to know. Not much weight added either I imagine.

Do you think Andymark will look more into housing such as this for the future?

How does it compare in terms of weight to a regular toughbox with standoffs instead of the extrusion? It seems like there would be a strength advantage in the new design that would justify it being heavier if so.

ttldomination

26-07-2010, 19:22

Are the front bolt patterns the same as on the regular toughbox, or have those been shrunk as well?

Also, I couldn't tell from the videos, but can we use two cims with this?

yarden.saa

27-07-2010, 06:19

The Toughbox Mini should be in the KOP.
Many teams have many regular Toughboxes so it will be freshing the KOP.
it cost 2 more $ so it won't be a problem or it will be??:ahh:

Jared Russell

27-07-2010, 09:45

How about an AM Shifter Nano/Mini :)

Brandon Holley

27-07-2010, 09:45

I wanted to support the motor fully AND provide strength to the motor mounting screws.

Andy

This is a very clever solution to a problem I've experienced in gearbox designs. Kudos on this one Andy!

-Brando

M. Mellott

30-07-2010, 04:08

Great new designs Andy!

I noticed on page 4 of the Toughbox Mini report, there is a list of the optional gear ratios available for both gearboxes. Included in this list is a 10.71:1 gear reduction. However, that option isn't listed on the Toughbox page and the optional parts are not yet available on the website. Is this something that will be available soon?

ttldomination

30-07-2010, 21:42

Is there any way we'll see some diagrams or CADs anytime soon?

Andy Baker

23-10-2010, 16:36

Speaking of new stuff, AndyMark has a new website. (http://www.andymark.com/)

For the past 6 years, we have been using a yahoo e-commerce solution that met our needs very well. As we grew, the yahoo site handled our traffic fairly well, but we needed more capability and value. So, we did a study this summer (led by Operations Engineer Brant Bowen) and found a great solution with Volusion.

We are constantly updating the site, finding errors left over from the conversion from the yahoo site. (fixing broken links to pdfs, etc.)

So, if you find anything that needs fixed, or if you have any questions and comments, feel free to send me a PM.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker
President
AndyMark, Inc.

PerpetualMotion

24-10-2010, 09:51

JB987

24-10-2010, 10:57

I have to respectfully disagree with PerpetualMotion...I think the new site is great Andy. Key links easily found on the home page, one or two step clicks to the products and information you want, efficient layout and the magnifier is a huge help to us older mentors who can never remember where we put our reading glasses!

EricH

24-10-2010, 11:21

So when do pictures of the CIMple Box show up?

synth3tk

24-10-2010, 16:05

I don't really like the layout. It looks kinda cheap and unprofessional. I'm also not a fan of the magnifying glass when you roll over images on your product description pages. Overall I prefer the old site but I guess thats just because most people don't like change.
I haven't used the old AndyMark site, so I can't comment on how improved or degraded it looks, but I think it's good. Easy to find what you need (categories on left, key links up top, etc). The color scheme isn't rough on the eyes, and while the magnifying images may be a bit irritating, the site functions well and as expected.

Cory

24-10-2010, 17:01

The one thing I like less is the product page layouts.

I liked the way they were tiled as opposed to listed. I think mainly because the thumbnail was bigger and it was easier to visually identify what you were looking for. Also for the pages that have menus to bring you to the section of that category for a specific product type, it would be nice if the menu stayed at the top when you navigate to the sub-page, so that you can click a different product type without going back in your browser.

Chris is me

24-10-2010, 17:57

The main complaint I have is that clicking a wheel page shows you a big picture... of tread. There's no general picture of "here's what this kind of wheel looks like". It would be cool if for the Plaction and Performance wheel pages, it had a picture of all 3 sizes stacked up together.

@Eric: There was a picture on the old website, basically it looked like a Toughbox Mini but a little smaller.