Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Extra Discussion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   pic: WCD (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110279)

msimon785 29-12-2012 15:40

pic: WCD
 

DampRobot 29-12-2012 15:48

Re: pic: WCD
 
First, thanks for posting this. I really like the orange and black paint job; we might be doing something similar this year.

I've got a couple of questions about your implementation of the WCP DS. What center drop did you use? Why did you decide to put the gearbox pockets in your bellypan so far in? In the DT I'm working on, with a 3/16" drop, the pancake cylinders will clear the belly pan by a few hundredths. Also, I believe the DS comes fully anodized black, so you might not be able to make the gearbox plates orange.

Finally, if you're doing a waterjetted bellypan, why don't you put the electronics on it? Your slide out electronics board is certainly cool, but having it with the bellypan (where most teams put their electronics) seems redundant. Is the bellypan where you're planning on putting your pneumatic system?

Joey Milia 29-12-2012 16:48

Re: pic: WCD
 
Just one thing on the DT, I can't see but I just want to make sure you have the bearing blocks really well connected inside the tube. On a prototype last year we just had 3/8 plate on each side with spacers and they would wouldn't always be lined up correctly.

Besides that the drive looks like a run of the mill WCD and I'm sure it'll work if it's made well.

As for the electronics, what's supporting the PD board? It looks like it's just on 1/8 polycarb. You might want to think about supporting it because it looks like it'll bounce around a lot and that might looses up connections.

Mk.32 29-12-2012 17:12

Re: pic: WCD
 
By the looks of your design I assume it's welded together?
Looks pretty slick, can we get some more photos of the electronics area?

MichaelBick 29-12-2012 17:34

Re: pic: WCD
 
We work very closely with 1515, so I feel like I can speak a little about this drive. The mortorq electronics system is modular. It's very nice to have, but quite heavy. Basically both Mathew and I have tried to get Mortorq to use a regular electronics(non-modular) bellypan, but so far they have been resistant to the change. This isn't the final iteration actually though.

The bearing blocks(at least on this iteration) should be fine. They are the 973/1323 bearing blocks.

msimon785 29-12-2012 17:42

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1205707)
First, thanks for posting this. I really like the orange and black paint job; we might be doing something similar this year.

I've got a couple of questions about your implementation of the WCP DS. What center drop did you use? Why did you decide to put the gearbox pockets in your bellypan so far in? In the DT I'm working on, with a 3/16" drop, the pancake cylinders will clear the belly pan by a few hundredths. Also, I believe the DS comes fully anodized black, so you might not be able to make the gearbox plates orange.

Finally, if you're doing a waterjetted bellypan, why don't you put the electronics on it? Your slide out electronics board is certainly cool, but having it with the bellypan (where most teams put their electronics) seems redundant. Is the bellypan where you're planning on putting your pneumatic system?

We are actually not using this bellypan. It was designed more for the aesthetic of the rendering and would actually be useless because it does not prevent torsion in the frame much at all (because of the typography in the center).

Instead, we are using a waterjet 1/16" ABS bellypan with a few large pockets rather than the conventional diamond pattern.

As to the electronics, 1515's electronics for the past 3 years have utilized c-channel slides and either a reinforced corroplast or polycarbonate. We use WAGO X-comm modular terminal blocks to allow us to easily remove all the electronics in a matter of seconds. Is this level of modularity necessary, or perhaps even desired? No. However, it is a technique that has worked for our team in the past and we do intend to continue modularity in electronics in the future. It is something that our programmers and electrical students both very much appreciate as it allows them to work independently and free of debris.

The bearing blocks are very similar to the 973/1323 ones as Michael said, but with a different bolt pattern.

Please note that while this is a "standard" wcd frame, a much more recent iteration (except for the abs bellypan) is found here.

EDIT: Also, the WCP gearboxes are anodized black and colors in both this rendering and that of our latest revision are simply for the sake of the rendering. (I actually helped with the WCP renderings).

DampRobot 29-12-2012 20:47

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Milia (Post 1205724)
Just one thing on the DT, I can't see but I just want to make sure you have the bearing blocks really well connected inside the tube. On a prototype last year we just had 3/8 plate on each side with spacers and they would wouldn't always be lined up correctly.

I'm interested to hear this. What was the root of the problem (ie, if stresses caused undesirable misalignment, what was the cause), and what undesirable effect did this cause? Also, could you describe your setup? What changes did you make in your 2012 drive?

I ask because we're contemplating doing something very similar for our 2013 drive. Here's a screenshot of the setup we're thinking of: http://puu.sh/1H1fU. We would have 2 3/8" plates on either side of the tubing, pocketed so they fit over 2x1 tubing. They would be kept parallel by the 4 10-32 button heads running between the plates, the shaft itself, and the tensioning screw in each plate.

Joey Milia 29-12-2012 20:57

Re: pic: WCD
 
We had two 3/8 plates that fit halfway into pocketed tube and two bolts with spacers holding them together. Tensioning was done with a bolt from the end of the box beam to one of the two spacers. With the chain pulling one way and the tensioner pulling the other, the shaft ended up at a slight angle. It still ran fine and wan't much of a problem but it probably put additional load on the bearings.

For the season we machined one big spacer that pocketed into each plate and partially held the bearing on each side. Because both bearings where in once piece they stayed in line.

roystur44 29-12-2012 21:40

Re: pic: WCD
 
Do you have to take the transmission apart to change a belt?

Mk.32 29-12-2012 21:45

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by roystur44 (Post 1205846)
Do you have to take the transmission apart to change a belt?

Those look like chains. Why 2 sprockets on the ends?

MichaelBick 29-12-2012 22:05

Re: pic: WCD
 
DampRobot, I reccomend looking at 973's CADs and checking out their bearing blocks. They are super easy to machine and are 1 piece. The side plates can be made simpler if need be(that's what we did last year), but if you have a waterjet sponsor they can do it too.

The WCD is a chain drive. It looks like belt because chain made in solidworks is a solid piece. I'm not sure why the extra sprocket is there and a spacer would probably be in it's place.

Garrett.d.w 29-12-2012 22:28

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DampRobot (Post 1205707)
Why did you decide to put the gearbox pockets in your bellypan so far in? In the DT I'm working on, with a 3/16" drop, the pancake cylinders will clear the belly pan by a few hundredths.

Hi, I'll go on a big tangent that will talk a little about why I design with big gearbox pockets.

One thing that we on 2733 learned the hard way with our first WCD was that everything needs to be easily removable. Our bellypan didn't have large enough cutouts in it to accommodate the transmissions when we were trying to get them out. Our second version (used at Bunnybot this year) had cutouts that were as big as we could make them without compromising the rigidity of the frame. It saved weight and friendships ;) .

The basic rule for us: the pockets are cut to measure at least the length of the transmission (tip of shaft to end of the cylinder or motor, depending on the mount) plus one inch.

apalrd 29-12-2012 22:42

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrett.d.w (Post 1205855)
One thing that we on 2733 learned the hard way with our first WCD was that everything needs to be easily removable.

This is a fantastic lesson for all in this thread, not just WCD drivetrains even.

It's usually far easier to service drivetrain components for the bottom instead of the top. Then you can build whatever you want on top without worrying about service. Fully removable gearboxes are also nice because you can work outside of the machine entirely, and you always want to be able to completely replace critical assemblies with spares without possibly forgetting a washer (or bearing :).

In fact, with recent drivetrain development, we've heavily prioritized bottom access to key components, especially chassis maintenance points. When game mechanisms get added on top, it's too hard to access many of them from the top.

msimon785 29-12-2012 23:43

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mk.32 (Post 1205848)
Those look like chains. Why 2 sprockets on the ends?

Michael is right, those are "chains". I actually made this one in Inventor though. The second sprocket is, embarrassingly, a case of laziness. Now that I use SolidWorks, however, I use a configuration for the sprockets so that each wheel/bearing block assembly only has the single appropriate sprocket.

Also, in the current revision, the shafts are chamfered at the end as per the WCP Design.

Thank you for the suggestions regarding opening up the bottom. I will make sure to leave clearance pockets for maintenance purposes.

DampRobot 30-12-2012 01:33

Re: pic: WCD
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK (Post 1205851)
DampRobot, I reccomend looking at 973's CADs and checking out their bearing blocks. They are super easy to machine and are 1 piece. The side plates can be made simpler if need be(that's what we did last year), but if you have a waterjet sponsor they can do it too.

I take your point about the 973 blocks being easy to machine, but I just can't get around the fact that there are 3 pieces that need to be machined instead of 2. I guess my question comes down to this: why do the bearings need to be in one piece, and if they aren't, what happens? Joey's response seemed to be that although this can cause the wheel to be out of alignment, nothing terrible happens.

On the other hand, if two piece (rather than 3 pieces) are hard to keep aligned, and this misalignment will significantly impact performance, a 973 (or 254, for that matter) style bearing blocks are the best option. I just wasn't really aware that this could be a large problem, and want to make sure that we don't make any drivetrain decisions that we'll regret next year.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I just want to learn a bit more about the ins and outs of WCD bearing blocks, like the ones featured in this design.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:51.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi