|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
The smaller wheels allow for smaller gear ratios and sometimes fewer reductions in the gearbox, this usually results in a more lightweight gearbox. I do not know about keeping the wheels as far out as possible as a motivation for smaller wheels, I would usually try to do that anyways regardless of wheel size (just my preference no real reasoning on my part behind it). |
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
And what is "press fitting"? Could you elaborate. |
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Don't weld or weld near bearings. The grease has a bad habit of lighting on fire.
Quote:
Press fitting refers to having a hole that's just slightly smaller than the diameter of the bearing, so when you press it in, it doesn't come out. It's kind of tough to figure out what size hole to make and then make it accurately (within a few tenths). Last edited by Gray Adams : 01-10-2012 at 23:09. |
|
#35
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Well, good thing I asked, thanks!
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Ok, multiple things:
1. If you need to hold in a bearing that is not a press fit the standard approach is to use bearing loctite, not glue or welding. Although glue is a much better idea than welding. But why are so keen on holding in your bearings? 2. A press fit is not necessarily undersized, it could also be exact size. The difference between press and slip fit depends on surface finish as well as hole size. If you have a hole that you made exact size via a rat tail file chances are that's not going to be a slip fit. I caution you if you press in your bearings, too tight a fit can make a bearing seize up. 3. I would not suggest having a drivetrain with swap-out wheels with the size variation that you're talking about. If you have clearance for a 8" wheel but you use a 4" you're just not utilizing your frame space, the idea is to get the wheels close to the ends of the frame. There is no way you can swap out a 8" wheel with a 4" without changing the gear ratio. The fact that you want to do this makes me think that you didn't fully plan out your ratios and wheel sizes to your desired torque/speed. I suggest you calculate your drivetrains speeds using your different wheel sizes and you'll see how big of a difference wheel size makes. 4. The advantage of small wheels is that they're light, they lower your CG and they require less reduction. Don't use them unless you calculate your robots speed using them, or you might end up with a very slow bot. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
Dead axle = Axle is fixed, wheel turns on the axle. |
|
#38
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
So, doing more research on CD, I have come across bearing mounts called "Sliding Bearing Mounts". What are these exactly. It seems as if they are used for chain tightening, but I have no details about how they do this.
|
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
Unfortunately, 254's website is under construction, so I can't pull up any of the great pics I know they had there. I'm sure someone else here can dig up some instructive photos. |
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
The "Sliding Bearing Mounts" are blocks that house the bearings for the live axle and they slide in slots in the frame. This allows you to move the axles slightly further appart tensioning the chain.
|
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
It's interesting to hear so many people say that canilevered, direct driven systems are the lightest and best when some of the most successful teams in the world do neither of those things (most notably 67 and 1114).
I know Jim Z has done annalysis on 254, 1114, and 67's frames. I *think* 1114's frame was lighter than 254's by about two pounds. We used .06 sheet metal this year and will probably go down to .05 sheet metal next year. I am pretty sure that our frame weight beats out 254's by a pound or two. What get's 254's weight so far down is there use of tiny wheels which takes weight out of both their gearboxes (which are custom and very light) and wheels (also custom and very light). Direct diving helps too I'm sure. Perhaps, some 254 people could chime in and correct me here if I'm wrong on any of these points? In any case, I'm just stirring the pot. Regards, Bryan |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
Here is a section view from our offseason project last fall. If you look carefully inside the tube, you can see the space the bearing block has to slide back towards the gearbox and loosen tension (to the right). Also, here's a view of how we kept the bearing block in place. http://i.imgur.com/VrDEJ.png It worked, but it really wasn't the greatest method. It should get you thinking though, and we came up with it halfway through building it. Last edited by Gray Adams : 12-10-2012 at 22:04. Reason: Added picture |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
I will side with the live axle cantilevered drivetrain not on the grounds that it "weighs less", but by the fact that maintaining one can be easier. When the wheel is supported by live axles on both sides by the frame, working on the drivetrain becomes easily more painful and irritating when frame members are in the way. With the average west coast drive, replacing components like wheels, axles, and chain is a snap because there's only one frame member to deal with.
|
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WCD vs Standard
Quote:
I wouldn't say that weight is the top factor in 254's choice of using a cantilevered drive year after year. It probably only comes in fourth after ease of maintenance, robustness, and aesthetics (you wouldn't believe how many design decisions come down to aesthetics). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|