Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

This makes me glad we chose 6CIM drive.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Our wheels are set at a 32 foot arc, which allows the drive to act, more or less, like a 6 or 8 wheel drive at any given time. What we've found over the years, however, is that during a pushing match with a typical 6WD robot, the forces of the two robots can actually push 6WD robots onto their back set of wheels and lift their front and middle ones up (even just a little), thus reducing their traction and making them effectively 2WD robots. Having extra wheels on an arc helps ensure constant contact with the floor during all conditions.

That pretty much sums up what I'm expecting.

2008 was an interesting case, we had a situation where we had a custom gearbox, that had a 3rd stage consisting of an 8 tooth gear that undercut a 50+ tooth cast iron gear, which was custom made (with a 3 week lead time to get more) and we had forgotten spares (and we were in Canada). This years robot, by comparison, uses standard VEXPro 3 CIM Ball Shifters, with parts we can get easily, and if necessary pick up from The Robot Space (one of the new VEXPro partners), less than an hour away.

The drive system itself is also much closer to our 2007 bot due to the use of gears to drive the wheels, rather than chain, and a very similar gearbox configuration to the drive we had that year. With the exception of a bearing failure in the finals of West Michigan (which we went on to win anyways), there was virtually no reliability issues with the 2007 drive system.

Soon, I'm hoping we have it driving next week.

Exactly, our wheels this year are also wider than we've used before (1.5in wide this year, compared to 1in past years), so we're hoping they will provide us with a bit more traction.

We had no issues with the individual 40A breakers on our 2007 robot (the predecessor to this design), now, whether or not the 2 additional MiniCIMs cause the main breaker to pop is another question. We're using such a low low-gear that we should loose traction before stalling the motors though (at least, this has been the case on past machines).


Apologies for the wall of text, just figured I'd answer all the questions in one go. :rolleyes:

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

well, you should be fine operating at 39amps per motor for a while
And if you are worried about the 234 amps on the main breaker, allow me to show you the current graph as per the manufacturer



As you can see, you can draw 200% (240 amps) for 10 seconds minimum, as per the specifications

EDIT: link fixed?

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

link is broken, please try again. I'm worried about the snap fuses. I've seen what a resetting snap fuse does to a robots drive train. It isn't pretty.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Any reason you chose to assemble the 2 gearboxes identically instead of mirror images (which would have made the drive symmetrical)?

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Really? I can see it just fine.
Anyways, that pic is a screenshot from this pdf, page 34 you will find our switch.

So long as you do stay within the 40amps per motor, you should not need to worry too much about the main

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

No particular reason, its just how they were assembled. In the past we would use identically assembled gearboxes (or driving one gearbox to different wheel) for maintenance reasons, since pulling a gearbox with a long hex shaft output off is difficult when the boxes are right up against each other. This year the gearboxes are so huge though, it really doesn't make a difference.

We have to pull the panels apart when we install the idler gears anyways, so we may yet change the configuration of the one gearbox, especially since it's not hard to switch.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

yep, still broken for me. the 40 amp resetting fuses are what scare me. I have never seen a main blow, but the quick resetting 40's popping = a bad day with robots.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Not saying it can't happen, but in my 8 years on my team I've never seen us trip a 40 amp breaker.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't adding the 3rd motor to the gearbox take some of the load off of the other two, thus making a breaker reset less likely? :confused:

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

In normal driving, it does take a bit of load off the other motors, but in a pushing match where all motors are giving maximum output you have a larger chance of tripping the breaker with a 6 motor drive than a 4 motor drive. The solution is to just not get into heavy and sustained pushing matches.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Correct, current = torque. So by adding a 3rd motor to each gearbox you reduce the load on the 40amp breakers while the load on the main breaker will remain the same for the same torque, regardless of motor count.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

To answer your question, yes I did.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

so adding three motors doesn't increase torque? interesting.

Re: pic: Did Somebody Say Defense Game?
 

Mad Crazy Drivetrain.

IMHO, this may be the year that Mecanums make it to Einstein.

A defensive Robot that can strafe in the Goalie zone or between two robots passing is more akin to defensive play in Hockey, Soccer, and Basketball.

Pushing or preventing is another issue, but that may not be the key to defense in Aerial Assist.