Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Great work on the CAD; you've obviously put effort into realism and detail.

There are few minor details you might want to address:

1. A few components resting on the bottom plate don't seem to have adequate mounting tabs (the Victors do; the Spikes don't).
2. Add bigger radii whenever possible, to decrease stress concentration (there's a tradeoff to be made regarding weight). A few of the lightening holes are unnecessarily sharply cornered. (Also there are a couple vestigial lightening holes, e.g. in the near corner in the photo; get rid of them.)
3. Those bumper mounts are convenient, but very carefully scrutinize the 2012 rules, because your design would have been legal some years, and illegal in others. (Presuming that you recess the bumper backing into the frame rails, and depending on whether you add furring strips or rest it on the protruding bolt heads.)
4. The tall vertical chain-tensioning slots look like they may be a weak point, depending on how well you can clamp the frame rails together with the tensioners, and how much the chassis flexes overall. They interrupt the web, weakening it. Instead, consider a small vertical slot, only where you need it.

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

First off, thanks to all to all for the great feedback. I'll see what I can do to address all the questions.

@Jamie Kalb: Like Akash suggested, the drive motors and gearing have been moved up to free up space on the belly pan. While that does move the CG up a bit higher we think that it is still a good trade for easy of access and maintenance.

@Akash Rastogi: The frame is all 1/16 flat sheet that has been waterjet. We then pop rivet the sheet to 1x1 1/16 angle to create the box. Our team does not have access to a proper bend break or press break (nc or manual) so this method of construction is what we've come up with for using sheet. The odd flange that I think you are talking about is the backing that has been left for the angle that the sheet is pop riveted to.

The transmissions are modified super sifters with the shifting shaft moved and the last stage removed. The output shaft is coupled to the rear wheel with a short chain run to allow easy removal of the wheel for maintenance.

@Allen Gregory IV: Those are 1/4-20 bolts. We have been going back and forth between using hollow shafting with a single bolt, and tapping the ends of the shaft and using two bolts. In any case they will be dead axle.

I'll have to get back to you on the solenoids, I can't seem to remember the model name off the top of my head and I am out of the house.

@Ninja Bait: We considered using a specific center to center distance between the wheels to allow for a set number of links. However, we felt that the chain would still have a propensity to stretch so the tensioners were placed in the model. The tensioners coupled with the idler also move the more of the chain inside the frame and increase ground clearance, which were only more pros for this option.

@Chris Is Me: The follower wheel is spring loaded. We are using spring steel with the wheel mounted lower than its radius. It's kinda like an upside down diving board.

@0'Sanchseski: Yes, those are indeed 4" AM Plaction Wheels.

@Tristan Lall: Sharp eye noticing that not all the electronics have mounting tabs/holes. Most of the electronic position is still up in the air between the design/CAD team and the electrical team.

Thanks for the tip on the larger radius, we'll be going back and adding a more generous fillet to a lot of the trussing and also removing the holes you suggested.

We used the same method for mounting our bumpers last year and found it very effective. By having the bumpers inside the frame rails added a good deal of stiffness and made install and removal quick and easy.

The tensioning slot was left as is to allow more than the shown configuration for chain runs, but I do agree that as shown it takes away from the strength of the frame. We'll take another look into it.



Thanks again to everyone. :) Please keep the questions and critiques coming, they are more than helpful!

-Dave McLaughlin

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Where's the Like button on this thing :cool:

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Those are valid reasons; I should have expected that thought went into the idea instead of laziness. But it definitely sounds like those reasons would still be served by a shortened slot put in the right spot.

That's a sneaky use of your bumpers. Shame and kudos to you. Was that a fortunate coincidence or was it planned?

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure it was an informed engineering decision, and not just a "Hey, these could fit like this! Wouldn't that be cool?" Sounds like you guys got it all under control. Great work!

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Not only did this turn out looking pretty, it's a nice start for you guys on the CAD team this year! Whether you go 6 or 8 wheel, I figure you guys will be more prepared then we were last year to start drive base prep!

Keep up the good work Michael and Reilly and all the CADawans!

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Just saying. That frame is very low to the ground Will it get high centered while trying to get on the ramp? Also can it even cross the center railing? But anyway that looks like a very durable chassis

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

I don't believe when they designed the drivetrain and chassis in the fall did they know these aspects of the game. And if they did, well, I'd like to know their sources of information for future reference XD

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

You are correct, this was an off-season project and was therefore not designed to be able to climb inclined slopes. Chances are the chassis will just be elevated a bit, since we are allowed to place the bumpers anywhere between the 2-10" space above the floor.

Re: pic: Team 1983 Fall CAD Project
 

Duuuuuuude....shiiiiiny.....

Nice design, by the way.