Thoughts on the new AM14U 2014 KOP Drive train?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

... we were given the choice between $450 to spend on known solutions and what was essentially a mystery, ...

Not essentially a mystery. We were told what type of drivetrain it would be, who would be designing it, and what the fundamental components would be.

[edit]@Tom: The square configuration is also a drop center.[/edit]

[tickspe15]

One advantage of the 2014 chassis that we noticed building ours yesterday was that it is much easier disassembled than the previous kitbot. In the past we inorder to replace a gearbox or even worse wheels required loads of work. With the new chassis we just have to remove the outer plate to get access to the wheels

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Not essentially a mystery. We were told what type of drivetrain it would be, who would be designing it, and what the fundamental components would be.

[edit]@Tom: The square configuration is also a drop center.[/edit]

That's still a pretty large mystery. While I know and trust AndyMark, I prefer to have seen a drive system before I agree to buy it.

[nickcvet89]

Does anyone know what the size specs of the AM14U in the long and wide configurations? I can't seem to find it.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by nickcvet89

I can't seem to find it.

Did you look

here

?

[valkyrie2240]

Originally Posted by nickcvet89

Does anyone know what the size specs of the AM14U in the long and wide configurations? I can't seem to find it.

Check page 7 of http://files.andymark.com/AM14U_Asse...structions.pdf

[nixiebunny]

Originally Posted by R.C.

Are you thinking of the Drive in a Day? VersaChassis was just released this year.

Yes, I am thinking of Drive in a Day. It was definitely not a finished product.

[Coin3]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

In the long configuration, the chassis is a drop center. In the wide configuration, the step files show that it is not a drop center.

At first I thought this was a incorrect measurement, but it looks like you're right... the holes for the front and back wheels in the wide configuration are lowered down to the same level as the drive wheel. It must be on purpose. Perhaps they found the turning ability to be sufficient and decided against the tilt so that there's less chance of the robot tipping over.

[Peyton Yeung]

I may be a bit biased from my involvement in the AM14U but I really like how versatile the system is. It can accept many gearboxes and really allows for the quick changing of components to suit ones needs.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Not essentially a mystery. We were told what type of drivetrain it would be, who would be designing it, and what the fundamental components would be.

[edit]@Tom: The square configuration is also a drop center.[/edit]

Richard, I haven't pulled the system out of the box, but I just rechecked the step file I have on reference and it shows the dimensions of the drops to be the same. Does someone have the system handy in the wide configuration so they can measure it? Someone else in this thread also checked the step and it shows no drop, and my box is at school and not at Ford where I can check it easily. -see post 23 supporting my dimension checks.

[TD78]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Richard, I haven't pulled the system out of the box, but I just rechecked the step file I have on reference and it shows the dimensions of the drops to be the same. Does someone have the system handy in the wide configuration so they can measure it? Someone else in this thread also checked the step and it shows no drop, and my box is at school and not at Ford where I can check it easily. -see post 23 supporting my dimension checks.

I also found there to be no drop in the wide configuration (using the manual and STEP file). I am using the axle hole that is 8.762" from the bearing hole. I should have taken the shorter belt and laid it over the holes to verify...will have to do that later this week unless someone else here can verify first. I'm looking to modify the inner and outer plates to get close to square (28" wide and 27.5" length). I had to add new holes for mounting the inner plate to the cross brace. I also had to add new holes for 2 churros in each corner (so there would be 8 per side). I'm thinking of using VEX tube axle and 4" 1/4"-20 bolts instead of the churros...and changing to #10-32 bolts with the pulleys and wheels (I did this last year and it worked well). Don't think I can get away from using the thread forming screws though when mounting the inner plate to the cross brace...the extruded hole is just too big to properly tap for a 1/4"-20. I'll add in some Loctite if I do end up using them in the aluminum. If anyone has a suggestion on an alternative mount solution, would appreciate it. The wheel base is a little shorter than I would have designed for if making from scratch, but it doesn't seem terrible.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Richard, I haven't pulled the system out of the box, but I just rechecked the step file I have on reference and it shows the dimensions of the drops to be the same. Does someone have the system handy in the wide configuration so they can measure it? Someone else in this thread also checked the step and it shows no drop, and my box is at school and not at Ford where I can check it easily. -see post 23 supporting my dimension checks.

Sorry for my confusing post earlier, Tom.

The square configuration I was suggesting is not symmetrical fore-and-aft. I was thinking to get a (nearly) square chassis by cutting the side rails 2567 and 2572 on one end only. The resulting configuration has two wheelbases; one about 8.76 inch from the center wheel via the 131 tooth belt, and the other about 12.6 inch from the center wheel via the 170 tooth belt. Axle holes for the shorter span are at the same rail level as the center wheel (no drop), and those for the longer span are raised about 1/8" -- the result is a chassis that can tip just a bit on the center wheels, effectively a slight drop.

[Jon Stratis]

Does anyone know how easy it is to do a mecanum setup with this chassis? My first impression is that a 6-wheel setup is easy, but mecanum might be difficult...

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Does anyone know how easy it is to do a mecanum setup with this chassis? My first impression is that a 6-wheel setup is easy, but mecanum might be difficult...

http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am14u-mk.htm

Based off the setup here, it seems easy to mount Toughbox nanos to the frame.

[Shu]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

The square configuration I was suggesting is not symmetrical fore-and-aft. I was thinking to get a (nearly) square chassis by cutting the side rails 2567 and 2572 on one end only. The resulting configuration has two wheelbases; one about 8.76 inch from the center wheel via the 131 tooth belt, and the other about 12.6 inch from the center wheel via the 170 tooth belt. Axle holes for the shorter span are at the same rail level as the center wheel (no drop), and those for the longer span are raised about 1/8" -- the result is a chassis that can tip just a bit on the center wheels, effectively a slight drop.

I'm sorry but we haven't got a chance to look at this in CAD yet but has anyone looked at making a square chassis by cutting ~2" off each end. I am sure this will require new belts but are the front/rear axle holes available for this. This keeps the front and rear wheebase the same.