Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Extra Discussion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   pic: Concept 6W Drive Train (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130953)

Deke 29-10-2014 00:20

pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 

Christopher149 29-10-2014 00:21

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Any particular reason for cutting off the corners? Does it help much in giving more area for a given perimeter?

Definitely have to concur that simple is good.

Munchskull 29-10-2014 00:23

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Looks solid.

asid61 29-10-2014 00:51

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Looks a little too solid IMO. There's a ton of 1x1 on there.
However, 34 lbs is still pretty light for six cims (actually that's very light) so adding in a shifting gearbox would make good use of that drivetrain I think. It's only a couple pounds more, and allows for safe top speeds of 18fps+ without worrying about main breaker trips.

mman1506 29-10-2014 01:00

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
What makes this drive train better than a kitbot with nitrile treads and 6 cim gearboxes? If you want to keep it simple why not go that route?

Andrew Lawrence 29-10-2014 01:04

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
How is that any simpler than this?


AdamHeard 29-10-2014 01:13

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence (Post 1406258)
How is that any simpler than this?


It's not.

asid61 29-10-2014 01:21

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Oh I just noticed:
Your main gearbox shaft is attached to the out frame member. If the outer frame becomes damaged in a collision and bends a little, it will damage the efficiency of the gearbox, and possibly render you immobile on one side.
Also, what's the reasoning behind cutting the corners? It seems like extra work to me.

EricH 29-10-2014 01:34

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence (Post 1406258)
How is that any simpler than this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1406259)
It's not.

They are trying to work within their existing resources, and this is a simple design that fits within those resources. I would probably find it reasonable to assume that they don't anticipate having the funding to buy Versa, or to buy Versa and still do X, Y, and Z that they want to or need to do. Or that they're one of the teams that prefers making over buying (there are a few out there).

Is a WCD simpler? Maybe. But if you're doing all the machining for it, there are some advantages to NOT doing a WCD (like having more time!). Even if you are thinking of buying one, there could still be advantages to not doing one (dead-axle setups tend to be a trifle easier than live-axle setups in terms of manufacturing, something about no keyway or hex).

Dunngeon 29-10-2014 01:42

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Are the gussets at the corners supposed to be seperate strips or angle iron? If they are seperate strips, it looks like a hard hit to the upper member could severely bend it inwards.

Edit: The upper 1x1 above the wheels

Andrew Lawrence 29-10-2014 01:44

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1406262)
They are trying to work within their existing resources, and this is a simple design that fits within those resources. I would probably find it reasonable to assume that they don't anticipate having the funding to buy Versa, or to buy Versa and still do X, Y, and Z that they want to or need to do. Or that they're one of the teams that prefers making over buying (there are a few out there).

Is a WCD simpler? Maybe. But if you're doing all the machining for it, there are some advantages to NOT doing a WCD (like having more time!). Even if you are thinking of buying one, there could still be advantages to not doing one (dead-axle setups tend to be a trifle easier than live-axle setups in terms of manufacturing, something about no keyway or hex).

A full versachassis can get expensive, I'll admit that, but just using some of the parts can greatly simplify this design and make it not only more effective, but more reliable as well. You don't need to buy an entire drivetrain setup, but using what your resources will allow can greatly simplify things.

You don't need to break bank on COTS parts to make a great drivetrain, but ignoring the cost effective resources available to teams isn't the answer either.

T-Dawg 29-10-2014 02:02

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Is there a particular reason why the corners of the chassis are cut off?
The only reason I can think of is if you're trying to make the chassis fit within the 112 inch frame perimeter.
Otherwise, I don't see a structural benefit of cutting the corners off.

Spoam 29-10-2014 02:14

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Dawg (Post 1406265)
Is there a particular reason why the corners of the chassis are cut off?
The only reason I can think of is if you're trying to make the chassis fit within the 112 inch frame perimeter.
Otherwise, I don't see a structural benefit to cutting the corners off.

If I had to guess it would be that they're trying to keep all the 1x1s the same length for convenience? Then cut ends to keep it flush. Personally though if that's it then I might rather have the extra support from corners.

JesseK 29-10-2014 06:32

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
(nvm)

Deke 29-10-2014 12:45

Re: pic: Concept 6W Drive Train
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher149 (Post 1406253)
Any particular reason for cutting off the corners? Does it help much in giving more area for a given perimeter?

It gave about 4.5" inches in perimeter back, so the frame is at 28 x 30 with ~ .5" to spare. The small increase in bumper complexity seems worth the extra 4.5".

Quote:

Originally Posted by asid61 (Post 1406256)
However, 34 lbs is still pretty light for six cims (actually that's very light) so adding in a shifting gearbox would make good use of that drivetrain I think. It's only a couple pounds more, and allows for safe top speeds of 18fps+ without worrying about main breaker trips.

I think you are right depending on the game, but I would like to avoid the added complexity and cost if possible. Most games don't require 18 fps imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mman1506 (Post 1406257)
What makes this drive train better than a kitbot with nitrile treads and 6 cim gearboxes? If you want to keep it simple why not go that route?

Not much, it helps with bumper support and added area for mechanisms. I also like how the gear box gets packaged. We like to build as much as we can in house. The kitbot wouldn't have the students machining the components.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1406262)
They are trying to work within their existing resources, and this is a simple design that fits within those resources. I would probably find it reasonable to assume that they don't anticipate having the funding to buy Versa, or to buy Versa and still do X, Y, and Z that they want to or need to do. Or that they're one of the teams that prefers making over buying (there are a few out there).

Is a WCD simpler? Maybe. But if you're doing all the machining for it, there are some advantages to NOT doing a WCD (like having more time!). Even if you are thinking of buying one, there could still be advantages to not doing one (dead-axle setups tend to be a trifle easier than live-axle setups in terms of manufacturing, something about no keyway or hex).

You are correct with how we are thinking. I would argue once you add bumper support and interfaces for mechanisms to a WCD, it is more complex. This structure immediately supports the bumpers and provides a little better locations for mechanisms imo. We also try to build as much as we can in house. We are fortunate enough to use the manual lathes and manual mills in the school to build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asid61 (Post 1406260)
Oh I just noticed:
Your main gearbox shaft is attached to the out frame member. If the outer frame becomes damaged in a collision and bends a little, it will damage the efficiency of the gearbox, and possibly render you immobile on one side.
Also, what's the reasoning behind cutting the corners? It seems like extra work to me.

With the bumper outside of the frames protecting them, I am not to worried about it. The dead axles also act as cross members supporting the outside lower beam. If the upper beam needs more support, cross members could be easily added. The corners being removed reduces the frame perimeter, allowing more length or width to be added.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Dawg (Post 1406265)
Is there a particular reason why the corners of the chassis are cut off?
The only reason I can think of is if you're trying to make the chassis fit within the 112 inch frame perimeter.
Otherwise, I don't see a structural benefit of cutting the corners off.

Using angle pieces to connect the beams, the corners have no structural benefit as they carry no load. Now if top and bottom gussets were used, then additional structural support would be provided. The statics and solid mechanics of the structure make the corners the strongest part. Angle pieces are susceptible to torsional loads, but the internal beams stiffen any torsional loading the structure would take. If you draw up a free body diagram it becomes clearer.



I can't take much credit for this, I just copied it from 469 with a few tweaks. I would say it worked pretty well for them, world championship and such things. Not sure any one was questioning the reliability of their drive train, hats off to them, they are an inspiration to all teams.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11.

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