Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Validius
...there was no way i could aquire any without making them myself.
I would *really* like to see this year's drivetrain use more standard parts.
|
For all those who offerred Mark help regearing the Kitbot, you should re-read the initial post.
I don't think that's what he came here for.
(kudos though, for 3 really good solutions).
Now, time for an intervention:
Mark,
It is okay for you to dislike the speed of the given kit drivetrain.
It is designed to be a good medium-fast speed, but it may not suit the needs of your team. You can't please everyone, all of the time.
It is okay for you to dislike the 16mm Metric output shaft with 5mm keyway.
This was implemented for a reason, which may not be obvious to everyone.
It is okay for you to hope FIRST will provide a solution with "standard parts".
A 1/2" Shaft with a 1/8" Keyway would be much easier, wouldn't it?
However, it is NOT okay for you to simply give up on solving the problem, and wait for a solution to be handed to you. There are MANY ways to re-gear the FRC kitbot, and change it's speed. For you to come here and say something along the like "
there was no way i could aquire any without making them myself." is highly disappointing and frustrating to me.
It just seems like you gave up, and now you're going to sit and wait for a solution to fall into your lap.
This is not what FIRST is about. This is not what engineering is about, and this is the kind of thing that makes people think the Kitbot should NOT be provided in the kit.
Maybe you're supposed to "make them yourself".
Maybe you're supposed to want to improve the given drivetrain.
Maybe FIRST WANTS you to strive for something greater than what is provided; and maybe they WANT it to be a challenge.
Let's see... for 2006:
Paul Copioli designs a 2 speed, coaxial swerve drive for the KOP.
Would people complain that there aren't 4 speeds?
Would people complain that the included CIM motors, don't have built-in cooling fans, and the rules don't allow them?
Would people complain that it is too heavy, and he should lighten the design?
Would people complain that he didn't include a mechanism to play the game?
Would people complain that he didn't include the software necessary to make it move?
If he answered ALL these complaints (Paul is a talented guy, I bet he could come up with
something.
)
What would be the fun in that?
Back to your sprocket/shaft issue:
Man up, and figure out a way to fix the (perceived) problem.
If you need help, ask for it. There are many people here who are more than willing to guide you through the process of solving this problem.
Maybe FIRST will provide something "better" for 2006. Maybe they won't.
One thing is certain... whatever they provide... you have the right to make something better.
I don't mean any disrespect, I'm just alarmed by the tone of your post. This is the kind of philisophical issue that scares me.
Engineering is Problem Solving.
-JV