View Single Post
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-08-2013, 10:30
Akash Rastogi Akash Rastogi is offline
Jim Zondag is my Spirit Animal
FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Manchester, Connecticut
Posts: 7,003
Akash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond reputeAkash Rastogi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team 67's incredible shooter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Freeman View Post
I would say that a detailed CAD process is the rule to follow, but there are always exceptions. When it comes to our design process, we are not the model that should be emulated. The designs that come from our process...maybe. But, the actual process...no!

We have two main designers, myself and Jim Meyer. Our robot is designed 99% in 2D AutoCAD. I sometimes use Solidwork to model already designed parts, but almost never for the design process itself.

Our 2D drawings are very much like very detailed sketches. Almost all the components are sketched out in an assembly view, but the very fine details are usually put in the print sent to the machine shop, and not in the assembly view. So our CAD files are almost impossible to decifer unless you are the designer currently working in the sketch.

Since we have full access to a water-jet machine, we try to design the majority of our parts to be manufactured that way. Since we only need a 2D file to export to the water-jet, it works out that we do all of our design in AutoCAD.

From a strength or weight analysis, our process is very experience oriented. We are confident in our abilities to estimate how small or large a part needs to be to survive in a FIRST environment. Along the same lines, we try to re-use similar designs for the frame, wheels, etc... so we usually know if a part or assembly is going to put us over for weight.

This style of design relys heavily on the designers to be completely involved in the manufacturing and assembly of the parts. Since they are really the only ones that know exactly how the parts are designed to work together.

As I said above, it's not a process that should be copied by anyone. We have made attempts to streamline the process...or add in aspects of other peoples design process (148, 1114, 254, etc...). But, every time when things start getting tight for time during the build season, the process reverts right back to where it has always been.

At this point, we have pretty much accepted that, like it or not, this is who we are...and how we operate.

The time we have to work on our designs seems to be getting less and less each year (between family and work responsibilities), so we don't do much more than is required to get the parts machined and assembled.

We are in the process of adding some more mechanical/design mentors that hopefully will help improve our process and provide more time to further enhance our designs and be able to teach more students/mentors how we create our parts.

-Adam
In a way, this is one of the coolest posts I've read on CD.

I definitely agree that detailed 2D design work can be used to figure out the geometry of a design (I always think back to the 2D drawings of Simbot SS) but doesn't it get difficult to make iterations, even with a practice bot and the district model?

Thanks for the insight!
__________________
My posts and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my affiliated team.
['16-'xx]: Mentor FRC 2170 | ['11-'13]: Co-Founder/Mentor FRC 3929 | ['06-'10]: Student FRC 11 - MORT | ['08-'12]: Founder - EWCP (OG)