Thread: VEXPro 2014: After The Season
View Single Post
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2014, 15:34
T^2 T^2 is offline
Registered User
FRC #5499
Team Role: Mentor
  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 219
T^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond reputeT^2 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: VEXPro 2014: After The Season
Quote:
Originally Posted by DampRobot View Post
This is probably because the nominal size of the hexes varies. For example, I'm pretty sure the bearing fits are .500", the gears, sprockets, and pulleys are about .502" nominal, and the spacers are probably a bit larger than that.

I'd rather have the VP CADs be the correct size. I like hexed things based on features concentric to the shaft (like the hub OD) and then make one part of the hex on each of the two parts parallel rather than making two parts in each of the hexes coincident.
This is correct. Knowing that the shaft is, say, .497, and the bore .503, is important for certain design considerations. As Damp mentioned, using angular/parallel constraints is just fine.

Also, I agree that the CAD files should all be imperial. Sometimes, I get constraint failures when trying to attach, for example, a metric hub to an imperial wheel, due to dimensional differences that result from the two standards.
Reply With Quote