Thread: CHIPS
View Single Post
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-05-2004, 15:25
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: CHIPS

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGoats
Simple Gearbox for one chip

http://www.valleytech.k12.ma.us/robo...2%20Gears1.jpg

Simple Gearbox for two chips

http://www.valleytech.k12.ma.us/robo...4_24wheels.JPG

or

http://www.valleytech.k12.ma.us/robo...ectronics2.JPG

better picture

http://www.valleytech.k12.ma.us/robo...4chipgear2.JPG

We did not have a drive train problem all year except for breaking 2 belts.
I see a bit of a problem here (regarding pictures 2 through 4), and I believe that this came up earlier (in this thread). You'll notice that the CIMs those pictures have (instead of an 8 mm keyed shaft) a sort of small gear built into the shaft (if memory serves, it's a 25° pressure angle piece--very non-standard). This version of the motor (the Atwood AP801-001 motor by CIM) was supplied in 2002 only. It was specifically legal in 2003, but not supplied in the kit (the FIRST version of the CIM motor, FR801-001 was introduced that year). For 2004, the FIRST-CIM was supplied, and the Atwood-CIM is no longer legal, per <R09> and <R70>. Electrically, they are very similar (but not quite identical, if the specs are to be believed--I'm looking at copies of both), but mechanically, they are different, due to the shaft configuration.

Now, there are pictures of a what appear to be a different version of the gearbox on their website--here, here, and here--was this modified version intended to use the correct CIMs? Or is this something else entirely? [Edit: Looking at other photos, those are something else entirely--they're for the winch.]

Also, note that per <R62>, to make the gearboxes kosher, they could have modified the output shafts on the FR801-001s to have the same profile as those on the old Atwood (this couldn't have been easy), but they couldn't replace it part-for-part (certain modifications are allowed, part substitutions are not).

(Note that they said that the problem of legality had been rectified by modifying the shafts, so I can't accuse them of impropriety--just of posting outdated photographs....)

And yes, this is slightly off-topic, and moot, given that the season is over, but it is of potential relevance to anyone hoping to build one of these systems in the future.


Last edited by Tristan Lall : 20-05-2004 at 15:49.