Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Streeter
snip
1 - Should we drive our 2007 drive base around (even though this will almost surely damage the carrier plates) for our testing so that we can proceed with robot testing even though we'll be damaging our currently undamaged carrier plates? i.e. Has it been decided that the eventual solution will involve giving new carrier plates to teams at no additional charge?
2 - We presume that the solutions will be applied not just to KoP 56mm gearboxes, but also to 56mm gearboxes which teams purchased from BaneBots?
3 - As one of the teams planning to use the 56mm gearboxes with 2:1 adapters and 16:1 gearsets, we'd like to know if we can help influence the decision to use Plan C for teams that purchased 2:1 adapters? (We view Plan B as a risky solution for 2:1 adapters and 16:1 ratios when used in the dynamic loading situation of robot drive.)
Thanks again for all your effort and that of so many others on this. As a team with almost no machining capabilities (we build the robot in team members homes), we're very relieved to see that the proposed solutions won't require our team to have parts machined or heat-treated!
Thanks again,
--ken
|
1) From what I have seen, failure of the carrier does not damage any of the other parts. This is fortunate because I know there is almost no way that we could replace 2000 or so ring gears if they were damaged by the failure. Also, we have all but given up on the idea of hardening the existing plates, so, I think you should feel ok driving your robot with the transmissions you have in hand.
I have high hopes to have good data over the next few days (good meaning accurate, not good meaning I am happy with the result). I may amend my advice on this topic if I find that a short driving delay now saves a longer delay later -- but that is not the case from what I know now and I don't expect it to be the case later.
As to making the fix free to the teams, I am not the person to sign the checks so I hesistate to say yes, but I can tell you that this is the direction everyone I know is working toward. I have made the suggestion that we pay for it with a pledge drive at each regionals. Imagine something akin to public TV's pledge week ... MC "We are going to bring you the next match very soon it looks like it is going to be a doozy." Field announcer "...BUT FIRST, we need to have 10 more first time donors to the Double D club!" ;-) Seriously though, I think so. But I am not the final answer on that subject.
2) My primary focus is to get the teams that depended on the reliabilty of these transmissions a solution that will serve them well. I can't speak for Banebots, but everything I know about them leads me to believe that they will stand behind their products. Sorry for the refrain, but I am going to have to answer with I think so, but I am not the final answer on that subject.
3) As to Plan B vs. Plan C for the 16:1 2-CIM case, I will with hold judgement until we get some good data. The entire team is focused on getting a set of solutions that deal with all 4 varieties (12:1/16:1, 1-CIM/2-CIM). I have reason to believe that Plan A will cover both 1-CIM cases and that Plan B will cover both 2-CIM cases (actually, I have reason to believe that Plan A will actually cover most 2-CIM cases too but to be safe, I have argued for preparing Plan B so that it is ready if we need it). Plan C is then a contingency upon a contingency. But, we will let the data take us where we need to go.
Joe J.