View Single Post
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-07-2016, 09:02
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: 7,587
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: pic: 25lb Drivetrain

Putting bearings straight into 1/8" wall tubing is just fine, it's only 1/16" wall tubing you really have to worry about ovalizing with. You should be fine there.

I'd consider riveting the bearings in instead of screws, just because I hate 4/40 screws and breaking taps and stuff. I guess if you have to change out a bearing there will be some rivet scraps inside your tube and that's kind of nasty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkahl View Post
A cross section of a C is almost negligibly weaker than a box. In this scenario, a single piece belly ban and front and back members is actually extremely rigid.

On top of that, a single-piece bumper could add even more strength.

By your logic, would not all drives with a similar single-piece belly pan and cross-members be weak, and limited in mounting? IIRC 971 uses a similar style design. What about the kit frame? It uses C-channel cross-members too.
I agree that the one piece belly pan / C-channel member will make this chassis likely rigid enough to perform well, particularly with stuff on top of it, but I wouldn't say a C-channel is "negligibly weaker" than tubing. It's certainly got substantially less resistance to bending. In this case, it's somewhat offset by the fact that it's got a giant bottom flange connecting it to the other side, and that the C-channel hugs the inside of the drive tube. This style of drive has certainly been battle-tested before.

I think this drive would get some strength benefit from making the top flange longer. Just an inch long is a little wimpy as a C-channel, and it could kink in the middle if hit really hard (and the bumpers aren't backed up with their own frame etc). I would just extend the whole flange to the length that is present at the points where it attaches to the frame. You're already using that material anyway; what's another few ounces per side to resist bending on impact a bit better. Especially if the belly pan is .090.
__________________
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