View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-11-2015, 09:36 AM
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is offline
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,589
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Team 4159 Dual Cim Two Speed Swerve

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chak View Post
So this is a common problem? Thicker plates it is. 3/16'' maybe. What would you suggest?
If that's a real concern, we could also extend the 3/8'' shaft and put retaining rings on both sides, so the shaft becomes structural and helps the plate out.
It happens sometimes. It's one of the mechanical "gotchas" that makes swerve way harder than it looks; along with the coaxial shaft bearing support, path planning, etc.

My gut (note: my gut isn't a substitute for actual engineering) says 3/16" would be fine. I believe that is what the Robonauts Revolution module uses among others. It helps that you've added standoffs between your two reductions; you're clearly thinking about this sort of thing.

I don't think switching to retaining rings on both sides of the 3/8 shaft would make it much more rigid. You can't really use a live axle structurally without loading up your bearings. That said, it's probably more rigid than not doing it, but also probably not worth the effort.

The easiest way to add in rigidity for "free" is to make the output shaft a dead axle, but obviously with very small wheels a dead axle isn't really an option.

Quote:
hmmmm...
I guess this would be a alternative trade-off we would make during competition season: less weight and simplicity versus more machining and less ease of gearbox repair.
Thanks for the idea! We didn't even realize that the spacers are almost exactly 2'' long, since we let them grow with the gearbox.
Yeah, this certainly isn't something you HAVE to do, and it would probably require a lot of rearrangement to make it work, but it would result in a very rigid, solid gearbox for even less weight than your current setup. You could use a few standoffs on the other two sides to hold the gearbox loosely together on the shelf, then clamp it down around (and bolt through) the tube when you're mounting it.

Another thing: if you tuck your steering gear totally underneath the 2x1 and have the VP output drop down from above, you can use a steering gear much larger than your module and it can overlap the 2x1 tube somewhat, maybe letting you push the module a smidge further out the frame. This is getting a bit ridiculous though, and isn't worth a whole redesign.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote