|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
pic: SimpleChassis
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
If this is for low resource teams, what advantage does this have over the kitbot, or any of the other COTS drivebases out there?
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
I don't wanna speak for the designer, but one of the immediate 'advantages' I see of this, not necessarily as opposed to the kitbot, but other COTS drivebases, is that I'm sure, aside from transmissions/motors/wheels, this could be built for <$75 with stuff that can be bought on a single trip to Home Depot
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
The brackets used for the eyebolt tensioning system are a little funky. Where would you source those?
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
I think the CAD rendering is a little funky. Double images on the outside wheels and the eyebolts.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Quote:
Also, some teams may have opted out of the kitbot, and since then realized that they really needed it. I know that my team thought we were going to be a lot better off this than we actually are, especially in terms of CAD resources. And, some people may just not like the kitbot. Especially this year when we don't know what to expect. So this would be a good alternative for those people, just like the COTs drivebases. Quote:
Quote:
The wheels aren't a problem with the render. We had double wheels, 1 on either extreme of the chain tensioning, and I forgot to hide one. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Ah. This is a time when including hardware in your model would be helpful.
![]() |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Yeah. After my post I realized that you probably were showing both the 'tensioned' and the 'un-tensioned' positions. Thanks for sharing this design.
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Very nice design. Looks like an afternoon project for 1 or 2 people. The chain tensioning set up I have used for many projects and while it does looks crude it works great. GRT has used eye bolts many times. I would add a cross brace at the top but that is my preference. This design would give a team a cheap practice chassis and one to test mechanisms on and save the kit chassis for later if they wanted to. Good work.
![]() |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Quick Question - Where is the cross strength going to come from? If all of the force is going to that wooden board, where the electronics are ideally mounted, that might not make a pretty sight.
Looks nice though, great way to practice CAD! |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Quote:
When we first built our chassis last year, we tried driving it around without bumpers. Like you said, it was not a pretty sight. What exactly might be wrong with the bumper corners? I don't see anything wrong. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Offset the transmission closer together. The main shaft needs to extend so a pulley can be attached outside the plate. This makes it easier to attach a belt without having to take the transmission apart to install/replace the belt.
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
After finding last years rules I think I mixed up the "you must have at least 1 inch supported on the bumper corners" with another number (very sorry about that). The bumpers should be fine.
One question, how heavy is it? (just so I can compare it to all the cots drives) |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Quote:
.Also, when the new rules come out, check if those corners are compliant with the bumper rules. Other than that it looks great. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: SimpleChassis
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|