![]() |
pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
I like your design! Looks like it will be a nice bot. Nice color too!
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
It definitely looks good.
Are those CIMple or toughboxMINIs, and are they being direct driven? |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
If it's not yet too late, please replace the flat plate on each end with something more rigid.
The only thing preventing your frame from becoming a wonky rhombus instead of a nice rectangle, as it's shown here, is a solid off-center collision. |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
![]() |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
A Cimplebox is not suitable for direct driving a six inch wheel. Did you "do the math" and figure out what your gear ratio would be?
Yeah, the 1/4 plate you have in the front and back are securely attached to the robot, but Madison's concerns are valid. It's not so much the plates physically moving as much as them parallelograming. (Is that a word?) Easiest way to fix both these issues would be to drop a Toughbox Mini in (with an appropriate ratio) and to add the AndyMark standoffs between the gearboxes, in addition to any "additional support" you might have planned (e.g. replacing the front and back pieces with C-channel or tubing). A rigid belly pan would also help a little. |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
Could you explain to me why we should you the Toughbox vs. the CIMple? |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
If we plug your drivetrain into JVN's Mechanical Design Calculator*, your drivetrain has a free speed of about 30 feet per second (approximately 24 feet per second after friction and other losses). That sounds great, except that you'll never, ever get going that fast. Either you would spend the entire length of the field accelerating, or in this situation, you're so overgeared that you will probably trip circuit breakers just trying to move or turn. Basically, you don't have enough torque to move yourself. The Toughbox Mini is a 2-stage reduction, so you have a lot more flexibility with your final ratio. I don't know if your team has the 2013 KoP Toughbox Minis (10.71:1 ratio) or the off-the-shelf ones direct from AndyMark (12.75:1), but both of those ratios are much better for 6 inch wheels. The former will give you a speed of about 10.5 feet per second after losses, which is a pretty good, fast speed for a robot that only expects to play a little defense, while the latter will give you a speed of 8.8 feet per second after losses, which is better for inexperienced drivers and more defensive play. *The "right" answer to your questions would be explaining all of the math of drivetrain gearing to you, but it's near the end of Week 4 so I'd rather just "give you the answer" and have you look into the physics behind it when you have free time. |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Thank you very much, I will address these issues at today's meeting.
Quote:
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
What is your opinion on changing the gears inside the MINI to a ratio of 8.45:1? Will this give us enough power? We are wanting the higher speed.
|
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
It may be that the additional structure you plan to add is enough to keep everything square and that end plates serve a light-duty or decorative function, but I can't make that call without seeing the rest of the robot -- and I'd be happy to take a look at it in confidence if you wanted to PM me a picture. As things are, though, I'd strongly suggest you do something to those flat plates to increase their resistance to bending. At this stage, riveting or bolting some angle along the top and bottom edges would be the simplest solution. You might also be able to get away with very securely attaching your bumpers several places along the length of those plates. Thick, high-quality plywood will provide a lot of stiffness. If this happened on my team, I'd insist on a change. A bent frame can cause all kinds of other problems with the machine and can be nearly impossible to correct while at an event. At best, it'll make driving behavior less predictable; at worst, you'll no longer meet frame perimeter or bumper requirements and be unable to compete. |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
was finishing out the frame and anodizing it expensive? We've not gone that route yet and usually build with the c-bars. Just curious....we're not funded by our school but we're quite fortunate to have great sponsors/patrons:D
SteveMiller 3355 |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
2341 who are in the same town as our team and working out of Gordon cooper technology center. I could ask them how much it cost them for the anodizing supply's and setup. |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
There are other components not shown that will beef it up more then enough. For example where our shooter is mounting, is 2 of the 1.5"x3"x1/8wall tubing laying on the side going across and firmly fastened to the frame, and then there is also pieces of the AndyMark hex shaft connecting the gearboxes. We have already addressed the stability of the frame flexing and have incorporated it into the rest of our design. I nor my mentors are worried in the slightest of the frame doing as you described. Thank you for the concern though. :) |
Re: pic: 3247 Robopack Frame Design
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi