Thread: pic: Cheap 6WD
View Single Post
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 12-27-2008, 09:14 PM
s_forbes's Avatar
s_forbes s_forbes is offline
anonymous internet person
FRC #0842 (Falcon Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,120
s_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Cheap 6WD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe_Will View Post
I wonder if section 4.6 of the manual also applies just to the crate or everything being shipped?

http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...nt.aspx?id=452
To save others the trouble of looking it up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4.6.1
The following regulation applies to any team planning to ship its robot into the U.S. from another country. Teams that do not comply risk having their robots detained at the U.S. border by U.S. Customs and not arriving at the event on time.
The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has adopted international guidelines to decrease the potential for the introduction of certain plant pests that may accompany wood materials arriving from other countries. The crate construction and pallet guidelines stipulate that wood packing materials be either heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with applicable rules. These wood materials must have the approved international mark certifying treatment.
Interesting catch if it applies, but if this rule only applies to "wood packing materials" then I don't think it would be a problem. (Our robot was denied shipment because it's full of bugs!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan2081 View Post
My team is making a similar prototype with six wheels, except we have the middle wheels powered instead of the rear. I think that this this rear drive is a better design but some people on my team don't think so. Can anyone give me any reasons why one would be better than the other (possibly someone to quote) so that I can convince my team?

thanks
I don't think either arrangement offers much over the other; they're very similar. I arrived at the configuration pictured because of some decisions I made about the way I wanted to build it:
-To make mounting the transmission easy, it would be face mounted to the wood (so no chain can run from the transmission on the inside of the frame)
-To minimize bending load on the transmission shaft, the directly-driven wheel needs to be as close in to the frame as possible. This means only one chain can be connected to the driven wheel, which means the transmission needs to be on an end.
This obviously doesn't apply to all designs, it's just the path I took for this particular one.
Reply With Quote