Non-treaded wheels?

[gorrilla]

Annoyed after years of replacing treads that fall off, I've decided that there has to be a better way.

Does anyone know where I could find some "traction" wheels that do not have plaction-style treads? And that would also be easy to interface with AndyMark products(sprockets, etc..)

I've heard of colson wheels, but I also heard that they are not the easiest to use "out of the box"?

Preferrably non-pnuematic...
Thanks

[JamesCH95]

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0420.html
You could try doubling, or even tripling these wheels together.

Maybe you should look at more effective ways of attaching the tread? The issue with getting a non-removable treaded wheel is that when the tread wears out the whole wheel is useless.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

Annoyed after years of replacing treads that fall off, I've decided that there has to be a better way.

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0420.html
Maybe you should look at more effective ways of attaching the tread? The issue with getting a non-removable treaded wheel is that when the tread wears out the whole wheel is useless.

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware. Here is a sneak peek. Later this summer, this method will be in place for all AndyMark Plaction Wheels.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

[JamesCH95]

Neither link seems to work.

[billbo911]

Robot Market Place has several options. I have not used them, just pointing out they are there.

[EricH]

An ancient FRC trick: Take a Skyway wheel (similar to the AM KOP wheels of the current day), grind or sand off most of the tread, then screw on belting that is similar to the AM belting strips. When you need to replace said belting, unscrew the screws and grab a fresh piece of tread.

It's not exactly common for this setup to fall off mid-match--if one end comes loose, you will notice pretty quickly.

[RyanCahoon]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware.

How much does the lacing protrude? Would there be any risk of violating, for example:

Originally Posted by 2010 R08

Traction devices shall not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments.

--Ryan

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware. Here is a sneak peek. Later this summer, this method will be in place for all AndyMark Plaction Wheels.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

So how would these work with the "no metal on carpet" rule? Assuming that it stays that is.

ChrisH

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by RyanCahoon

How much does the lacing protrude? Would there be any risk of violating, for example: (R08)

--Ryan

Originally Posted by ChrisH

So how would these work with the "no metal on carpet" rule? Assuming that it stays that is.

ChrisH

The application process suggests that some of the tread is ground away so that the metal lacing does not stick above the tread. The lacing has smooth edges and does not help in gaining any traction. The sole purpose is to lace the ends of the tread together.

In my opinion, rule R08, is not a "no metal on carpet rule". I have heard that some inspectors call it as such, and they are incorrect (again, in my opinion). Rule R08 is there to not allow "traction devices" that are metal, to assist with gaining traction to a system.

In the little bit of area where these laces touch the ground, I predict that there is LESS traction than there would be if there was no lacing. These are smooth, rounded metal hardware items.

I hope this helps. If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Andy B.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

The application process suggests that some of the tread is ground away so that the metal lacing does not stick above the tread. The lacing has smooth edges and does not help in gaining any traction. The sole purpose is to lace the ends of the tread together.

In my opinion, rule R08, is not a "no metal on carpet rule". I have heard that some inspectors call it as such, and they are incorrect (again, in my opinion). Rule R08 is there to not allow "traction devices" that are metal, to assist with gaining traction to a system.

In the little bit of area where these laces touch the ground, I predict that there is LESS traction than there would be if there was no lacing. These are smooth, rounded metal hardware items.

I hope this helps. If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Andy B.

And thus grounding wires are legal, but still, the tread is a traction device. Couldn't the laces be considered a surface feature of, or an attachment on, the tread?

[Garret]

My team screws the conveyor belting from McMaster onto the AM KOP wheels. We have found this to be a relatively cheap and simple alternative to plaction wheels.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Well, it sort of is: "Traction devices shall not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments."

On the other hand, the rule is clumsily written on several levels (e.g. "shall not" isn't necessarily an imperative), it hasn't been (uniformly) enforced that way for practical reasons, and there's no point in phrasing it that way (because metal isn't inherently unsuitable for use on carpet).

That's one rule I'd especially like to have a kick at fixing, because it's been an annoyance for several years.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's one rule I'd especially like to have a kick at fixing, because it's been an annoyance for several years.

I agree, it definitely needs to be fixed.

The intent of this rule, if I understand it correctly, is to not allow metal treads, as on TechnoKats and Wildstang robots in 2002. Also, it is aimed at not allowing file cards, which were also made famous by Team Hammond in 2002, and then copied by many teams that same year.

Maybe this rule can be scrutinized to death so that no metal can ever touch the carpet, but I seriously think that is not the intent. As a member of one of the teams listed above who had something on their robot which resulted in this rule, I would hope to understand the intent.

What surprises me is that well-meaning people look at this rule and automatically think that it's a "no metal on carpet rule".

I will start a new thread. Sorry for hi-jacking this one.

Andy

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware. Here is a sneak peek. Later this summer, this method will be in place for all AndyMark Plaction Wheels.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

I actually like the current set up quite a bit.

Why?

Because I'm able to remove the rivets, then yank the tread out without removing the wheels to split them apart (our wheels were captured on both sides this year).

While the conveyor alligator clips would certainly work, I'd like it even better if it was a small metal detail screwed into the wheel with 2 screws that had teeth on either side that pinch it against the plastic.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0420.html
You could try doubling, or even tripling these wheels together.

Maybe you should look at more effective ways of attaching the tread? The issue with getting a non-removable treaded wheel is that when the tread wears out the whole wheel is useless.

I didn't mean non-removable exactly, I was pretty much referring to the am-KIT wheels,

I guess what I was wanting is a solid rubber type wheel like those but with stickier material?