pic: Team 3572 Chassis Project

[MrBasse]

loading photo ...

[JesseK]

I really like most of the ideas behind this configuration. There is only one major modification I would make: Cantilever the middle wheels and remove the bent bracket on the outside altogether.

This bracket looks like it will receive all of the load that the wheels will put onto the frame. Its one major weakness is that it will most likely flex/bend in the direction parallel to the drive wheels when the robot is fully loaded at 150lbs or pushing/resisting another 150lb robot. This can be mitigated by adding angle supports along the outer frame, yet a steel cantilevered axle will handle it just as well without the extra parts.

I'm still mulling over how other pieces would react to the various forces imparted upon them during a match, but nothing jumps out at me at the moment.

[nathannfm]

It's hard to tell from this angle, and I assume you checked this already, but it looks like the belts to the outer wheels might interfere with the CIMs.
Also, I can't really tell what's going on with the outer wheel axles, the hex looks like it just kinda merges with the 2x1 with no bearing, and on the oppisite side looks like it has been turned down to 1/4in or something.

...wait...

Those are bolts aren't they lol, I have never seen someone cantilever bolts before, you might get some wobble if the threads are going through a bearing because the diameter won't be exactily that of the bearing or the tube they are running through...

You might also consider adding a 3rd CIM in the center with a shorter belt and widening the pulley to accommodate.

Those plates give me a bit of pause, you may want to brace them, but its worth a try in the off season.

[MrBasse]

Design isn't totally done yet. We were thinking of cantilevering the front and rear wheels and running dead axles with a support block inside the frame rail to make it solid. We would also use smooth shank fasteners.

We have never done this before, so our big fear is building something with weak points. That's why we plan on building it now and refining until 2016. The brackets around the center drive portion are to keep everyone happy, the big debate has started with us between cantilevering the whole thing or keeping those in to make sure the hex shafts stay aligned.

The belts miss the CIMs by .100 gap.

A major goal of this was to be able to build it with what we have in our shop currently. It's killing me that we have to send the rails off somewhere to get them machined for us as we don't have capacity to do it ourselves (a drill press just isn't that accurate, and drills don't make very good holes for bearings).

[jwfoss]

Can you explain the theory behind your locations of your 8 wheels?
I'm curious about your choice in spacing the two center wheels so close together, thanks.

[Travis Schuh]

What is your belt wrap for the stage off of your CIMs going to look like? If that is one belt tangent to the outside of all 3 pulleys, then I would question if you have enough belt wrap on the driven pulley in that arrangement.

[nathannfm]

Originally Posted by Travis Schuh

What is your belt wrap for the stage off of your CIMs going to look like? If that is one belt tangent to the outside of all 3 pulleys, then I would question if you have enough belt wrap on the driven pulley in that arrangement.

Oh, I didn't even consider he might be thinking this, don't do it! You want a very minimum of six teeth in total mesh and at least 60 degrees of belt wrap. I am pretty sure we had a bit more of both of those on our drive this year and even under extreme tension they would still ratchet. If you need a wider pulley I suggest http://www.vexrobotics.com/htdversapulley.html you can add slices to increase with width.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by nathannfm

Oh, I didn't even consider he might be thinking this, don't do it! You want a very minimum of six teeth in total mesh and at least 60 degrees of belt wrap. I am pretty sure we had a bit more of both of those on our drive this year and even under extreme tension they would still ratchet. If you need a wider pulley I suggest http://www.vexrobotics.com/htdversapulley.html you can add slices to increase with width.

With two 9mm belts I think we'll be okay as long as we get the tension right.

[75vs1885]

looks like the cims would interfere with the bumpers, and they could get damaged if hit to hart from another robot. Is there an advantage to having them pointing outside opposed to inside?
Other than that it seems really solid.
btw, would the electronics board be mounted underneath?

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by 75vs1885

looks like the cims would interfere with the bumpers, and they could get damaged if hit to hart from another robot. Is there an advantage to having them pointing outside opposed to inside?
Other than that it seems really solid.
btw, would the electronics board be mounted underneath?

bumpers would mount on the outside of the CIMs, but mounts haven't been figured out yet. Putting them outside gives a huge amount of space to get all of our electronics down as low as possible in the frame. We are trying to get back to our 2013 design where our center of gravity was about 4 inches off the floor. Having the battery lay down in the middle of the robot makes that pretty easy.

We have always only used around 13-14 lbs of bumper, a more ridged attachment frame that eats up around 5 lbs of bumper weight could be all the protection the motors would need, I hope...

[Deke]

I like the layout, it is very creative.

It looks like the cim plates are 1/8" thick, if they are, I would suggest at least 1/4" thick with the Cims cantilevered off them. 1/8" works if both sides are supported, but a big bounce or hit will put a large load on that thin plate.

The middle drive pulley to the cims looks cantilevered from the frame tube, I'm not sure if would would be an issue or not, but it would help if you can support it with a bearing on both sides. Some testing of the current layout will let you know, just something to watch out for.

I would suggest the dead axles with blocks for the outside wheels like you suggested, we ran cantilevered dead axles last year and loved the performance over live axles. With your belt layout, it makes it easier to run dead axles versus live axles as well.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Infinity2718

It looks like the cim plates are 1/8" thick, if they are, I would suggest at least 1/4" thick with the Cims cantilevered off them. 1/8" works if both sides are supported, but a big bounce or hit will put a large load on that thin plate.

This was my next comment since the CIM mount plates seem a bit tall. If the two mount plates were combined into a single mount plate, the design may be able to add strength without adding weight. It could also incorporate more belt wrap around the pulleys.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by 75vs1885

looks like the cims would interfere with the bumpers, and they could get damaged if hit to hart from another robot. Is there an advantage to having them pointing outside opposed to inside?
Other than that it seems really solid.
btw, would the electronics board be mounted underneath?

We (125) ran all last season with them dangling outside the frame like that. Had 0 issues with them. (1x Preseason, 4x Districts, DCMP, CMP, numerous off seasons)

Just remember that the wires exist and have minimum bend radii.

[MrBasse]

Made a few updates. Looks pretty much the same but added in blocks for the front and rear axles. Also bumped the motors up and over to give .25" clearance for belt movement. Also I removed the braces on the outside of the frame to cantilever the wheels and added retaining bolts on the axles.

I'll try to add belts tomorrow so the clearances can be seen better.

http://imgur.com/Xw2xC0l

[Scott Kozutsky]

I really don't trust the outside wheels. Our team made a minibot with cantilevered wheels on 3/8in bolts and despite it being substantially lighter than an FRC robot it could not handle the forces. Your wheels are also cantilevered out further than our minibot and are not on shock absorbing pneumatic tires leading me to trust this even less.

Also, you need blocks on the inside of the 2x1 to prevent the wheel bolt from just crushing it.