View Single Post
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-08-2014, 00:36
pfreivald's Avatar
pfreivald pfreivald is offline
Registered User
AKA: Patrick Freivald
FRC #1551 (The Grapes of Wrath)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Naples, NY
Posts: 2,295
pfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond reputepfreivald has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 1551 Off-Season Drive Train Project

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois View Post
It looks like you have e-clip grooves on the outside of the bearing and also at the end of the shaft to retain the wheel. You will be better served to remove the interior groove because it creates a failure point in the shaft that's seeing a lot of torque. Use spacers to maintain the gap you like between the rail and the wheel and keep the e-clip on the very ends of the shaft.

Nice work.
Good call, thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinthorne View Post
Same question, why 5 shafts? If you lose chain you could be unable to drive any of the wheels, whereas if you direct drive a wheel you are guaranteed at least one wheel under power.
The five shafts are for modularity--the center shaft becomes a direct-drive shaft in a six wheel application.

I'm not sure how worried I'd be about breaking two belts simultaneously (which is what would have to happen to lose drive completely on one side)--we've never broken one!

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinthorne View Post
Second, Are you using the w pattern traction wheels? http://www.wcproducts.net/versawheel/
In this drawing, yes, but it's sufficiently modular to accommodate any hex-bore wheels we want to put on. Wheel choice will depend on the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinthorne View Post
Third, Why go with exactly 112" perimeter? This may sound dumb, but why go as close as you can, because a tape measure may be short or you could bend your frame making it bigger... (my team usually goes at 111" to be on the safe side)
Not dumb at all. I brought this up multiple times to my team, and they keep poo-pooing me. If it becomes a problem at inspection, I'll just strangle them a while. Easy-peasy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinthorne View Post
Fourth, I have not worked with sheet metal before, but is it strong enough to support the wheel bearings without versa blocks or something to that extent? i have seen it done with thicker metal, but not sheet metal.
Yes, absolutely--but we've got plans just in case that confidence is unwarranted! We intend to build it early this fall and then try to destroy it via driving, and adapt as necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV View Post
That is what I was talking about by going to hexagon, instead of octagon.
Cool, thanks!
__________________
Patrick Freivald -- Mentor
Team 1551
"The Grapes of Wrath"
Bausch & Lomb, PTC Corporation, and Naples High School

I write books, too!