Thread: WCD vs Standard
View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-10-2012, 23:02
BJC's Avatar
BJC BJC is offline
Simplicity is Complicated!
AKA: Bryan Culver
FRC #0033 (The Killer Bees)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Kettering/Greenville
Posts: 707
BJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond reputeBJC has a reputation beyond repute
Re: WCD vs Standard

It's interesting to hear so many people say that canilevered, direct driven systems are the lightest and best when some of the most successful teams in the world do neither of those things (most notably 67 and 1114).

I know Jim Z has done annalysis on 254, 1114, and 67's frames. I *think* 1114's frame was lighter than 254's by about two pounds.

We used .06 sheet metal this year and will probably go down to .05 sheet metal next year. I am pretty sure that our frame weight beats out 254's by a pound or two. What get's 254's weight so far down is there use of tiny wheels which takes weight out of both their gearboxes (which are custom and very light) and wheels (also custom and very light). Direct diving helps too I'm sure.

Perhaps, some 254 people could chime in and correct me here if I'm wrong on any of these points?

In any case, I'm just stirring the pot.
Regards, Bryan
__________________
robot robot robot? Robot. Robot? Robot!
-----------------Team 33------------------