|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
Quote:
It's also worth nothing that VP will be selling an 11 Tooth Pinion (and 13T) during the 2014 Season, and they're kind of Magic when it comes to squeezing a little extra reduction out of a tight box. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
Looks like fun.
If I was putting gears in frame rails, I'd copy some elements of AndyMark's assorted Nano Tube products. They use 1.5"x3" tube to fit two gear stages inside the tube. If I was doing that, I'd probably either run chains inside the tubes (easier with the bigger tube) or do a full gear drive. Then I don't give away the space taken up by the pulleys between the wheels and the rails. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
I have seen the 11t, 13t and 14t cim gears, and it does seem like a nice way to get a quick reduction. I believe the 13t and 14t have a different c-c distance than the 11t or 12t. The 30t gear can also be reduced for slower speeds, the 50t gear is pretty much set for a 3 inch tall tube and the cim motors. Any larger (unless it is external) it will rub the walls, any smaller than 50t, there isnt access to the backside of the shaft between the 2.5" cim motors. As Pault suggested, the tubes could be cut for more clearance.
I like Nemo's suggestion of larger tubes, versus an external gear. Protection the gears from potential damage during a season seems valuable. It appears 3x2" tubing is available in 6061, whereas 3x1.5" is only available in 6063. Staying away from 6063 would be nice, and the 3x2 gives more room for bearings and a larger mounting surface for mechanisms. I agree Nemo that chain will package nicer, but all chain I have dealt with requires tensioner's because of wear. Although belts are wider and don't package as nice, they should require much less maintenance. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frame Drive
can you please call it "driveframe"
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
Ha I guess the grammar is a bit off. You can call it that if you want. The thinking was along the lines of tank drive, butterfly drive, west coast drive, mecanum drive, etc. So frame would be the adjective and drive the noun.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
Nice concept!
Are you planning on riveting it together? If so, do you have enough clearance for the river gun on the inside corners of the box tube (the 90-degree bracket with 8 holes)? Did you do any calculations to determine the wheel layout (VersaWheel vs. VersaWheel DT)? |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frame Drive
We do plan on riveting it together, and I agree that the corner brackets are very tight. We may be able to get at them with the hand rivet tool, definitely not with the air riveter.
There wasn't really any calculations done for wheel layout as far as versa W and DT tread go, more of a thought process. Since the middle 4 wheels are doing a majority of the work, the DT tread was designed by Vexpro to have better wear characteristics than the W tread. People had wear issues with the W tread last year. With very little work being done with the outside wheels, they should last longer and give better traction during a sticky situation. Now this is not geared to push, it should be able to cook the breakers for at least 4 seconds to get out of situations. When pushing into another robot the base should rock back or forward to get the better coefficient of friction of the W treads (1.2 versus 1.0 according to Vexpro) into action. Otherwise the outside wheels are useless. So maintenance and pushing were the considerations for the wheels. A 6wd may come to different conclusions since the middle wheel is in action 100% of the time. I was able to find 6061 T6 aluminum in the 3x1.5" variety, and the gears packaged quite nicely with the 1.5" wide tube. A few delrin spacers should finish the gearbox off. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|