pic: MadTown Chassis Rev 4

[R.C.]

loading photo ...

[NickE]

Very nice render!

I'm a little confused as to what you are gaining with all of the triangular pocketing. Seems that it'd be stronger and lighter to just use thinner tubing. Also, if you're keeping the letters on the front tube, it seems like the material in the inside of the "O", "C", "A", "D", "B", "S", and "R" is not really supported very much at all. You might consider adding additional support beams to support this material.

Is the superstructure frame welded to the drivebase. If so, you might consider separating them and making them bolt together to ease in assembly and allow both to be worked on at the same time.

Your electronics board has an interesting layout. It seems like it might be beneficial to swap the positioning of the Power Distribution Board & the Jaguars to decrease the wire lengths between the board and the Victors. This could be complicated if you plan to use the Jaguars for driving, but its just an idea. It seems like your control subsystem is pretty nice and compact in the corner. I do have to ask why you're laying the battery down flat rather than standing it up. Seems like if it was vertical, you would have a lot more space in that rear compartment. Also, I don't see a relay (it might be hidden) or any solenoids/regulators/etc. Where do you plan on placing these?

Its somewhat concerning that the 2009-2010 Electronics take up the complete footprint of a full-sized drive base with no room to spare, but thats another topic. Nice job on this! Its obvious that you've put a ton of work into this and its very nice.

[keehun]

-silly post and was deleted by me-

[Akash Rastogi]

Excessive pocketing it seems (as Nick pointed out with the words in the front rail). Also, that entire top tier of the frame serves no obvious purpose. Care to explain? As always, nice CAD work.

If you have ruled out building a traditional West Coast frame, what led you to your decision? I know that Adam Heard is hard to argue with when it comes to the benefits of the frame, haha.

Sorry for all the questions bro, but I just finished JVN's white paper on decision making in robot design and I'm trying to get more people to post up quantitative rationale on designs.

P.S.- You gotta remove all those electronics to show the people the smexi Poof/Pink inspired belly pan.

[BrendanB]

That looks beautiful RC!

Just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of the third motors on the gearboxes?

[Jeff 801]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Excessive pocketing it seems (as Nick pointed out with the words in the front rail). Also, that entire top tier of the frame serves no obvious purpose. Care to explain? As always, nice CAD work.

If you have ruled out building a traditional West Coast frame, what led you to your decision? I know that Adam Heard is hard to argue with when it comes to the benefits of the frame, haha.

I see a few very good reasons for the upper frame... protection of electronics... very nice handles to lift from and also with it being 1/16 wall its light as can be... nice mounting area for arms or what ever is needed...

and Also I think it is westcoast sorta... Because the outside walls on the bottom seem to be 1/16 and the inside seem to be 1/8 thus the main support is coming from the inside rail and not the outside... or at least thats what it looks like... Rc correct me if I am wrong

and RC what's the weight on it as well as why do all wheels have to sprockets?... getting lazy?

Originally Posted by BrendanB

That looks beautiful RC!

Just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of the third motors on the gearboxes?

My bet is added power... I remember there being something on here about it... I am going to see if I can find it
EDIT/ http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=58173

[Vikesrock]

It may be difficult to access the side of the PDB that is up against the back side of the frame. I would try to find a place to put it where you can get at both sides, unless you have a plan for how to maintenance it if necessary.

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by NickE

Very nice render!

I'm a little confused as to what you are gaining with all of the triangular pocketing. Seems that it'd be stronger and lighter to just use thinner tubing. Also, if you're keeping the letters on the front tube, it seems like the material in the inside of the "O", "C", "A", "D", "B", "S", and "R" is not really supported very much at all. You might consider adding additional support beams to support this material.

Is the superstructure frame welded to the drivebase. If so, you might consider separating them and making them bolt together to ease in assembly and allow both to be worked on at the same time.

Your electronics board has an interesting layout. It seems like it might be beneficial to swap the positioning of the Power Distribution Board & the Jaguars to decrease the wire lengths between the board and the Victors. This could be complicated if you plan to use the Jaguars for driving, but its just an idea. It seems like your control subsystem is pretty nice and compact in the corner. I do have to ask why you're laying the battery down flat rather than standing it up. Seems like if it was vertical, you would have a lot more space in that rear compartment. Also, I don't see a relay (it might be hidden) or any solenoids/regulators/etc. Where do you plan on placing these?

Its somewhat concerning that the 2009-2010 Electronics take up the complete footprint of a full-sized drive base with no room to spare, but thats another topic. Nice job on this! Its obvious that you've put a ton of work into this and its very nice.

Thanks Nick,

The whole chassis is 1/16th and there are only two pieces of 1/8th. Which are the inside chassis rails. I was being lazy with the letters, but I will do for sure during season if I put a full rail across.

As for pneumatics, I have no clue. I was just trying to squeeze in as much as possible. It depends on the game, I probably won't need that many Vics. So that may improve space. Also hoping for 973 to market that manifold they had up.

I may look into riveting the top piece of the frame to make ops easier.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Originally Posted by BrendanB

That looks beautiful RC!

Just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of the third motors on the gearboxes?

Third motor was an option for show, i doubt that I will end up using it. But if the game requires me to use CIMS elsewhere. A FP has a spot or if I have to reconfigure motors around. Flexibility is what i was going for.

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

It may be difficult to access the side of the PDB that is up against the back side of the frame. I would try to find a place to put it where you can get at both sides, unless you have a plan for how to maintenance it if necessary.

Great Suggestion, I'll look to improve the location in the future.

Jeff nailed the second layer use on the money and Jeff, I think I fixed that wheel problem, but forgot to re-render it.

Thanks for suggestions, keep them coming.

-RC

[M. Mellott]

No comments about the the design (maybe later, too late tonight)--I just wanted to commend the beautiful CAD modeling/rendering work. Very nice!

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Excessive pocketing it seems (as Nick pointed out with the words in the front rail). Also, that entire top tier of the frame serves no obvious purpose. Care to explain? As always, nice CAD work.

If you have ruled out building a traditional West Coast frame, what led you to your decision? I know that Adam Heard is hard to argue with when it comes to the benefits of the frame, haha.

Sorry for all the questions bro, but I just finished JVN's white paper on decision making in robot design and I'm trying to get more people to post up quantitative rationale on designs.

P.S.- You gotta remove all those electronics to show the people the smexi Poof/Pink inspired belly pan.

Jeff explained the top rail part. I haven't ruled out the traditional westcoast, this is just another revision to our chassis, hence Rev_4 (06-09). It has some more machine work which allows easier maintenance/bumper mounting and removal (machine work done by sponsor who only does our base this year).

The hole pattern I feel is worth it and the idea was taken from FRC 801/973.

Currently, I'm working with Adam to make a westcoast dt. Never done it and it should be a great experience.

Here's the render of the Pan itself.

Which was inspired by 254/968.

-RC

[GarrettF2395]

I've been waiting for a picture of this for awhile now. Great work RC as always!

[arob9119]

yeah, this looks totally amazing!!!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

The whole chassis is 1/16th and there are only two pieces of 1/8th. Which are the inside chassis rails. I was being lazy with the letters, but I will do for sure during season if I put a full rail across.


-RC

Have you run the numbers to see if 1/16" pocketed frame rails are strong enough? I would be very concerned about 1/16" unpocketed frame rails being able to hold up without some bending.

Originally Posted by rc_cola1323

Here's the render of the Pan itself.

Which was inspired by 254/968.

-RC

We can't take credit for the idea. We borrowed it from 233. I'm sure other teams have used it as well.

[AndyB]

Certainly covering our bases with 10 speed controllers, aren't we?

Very nice render. This base looks pretty solid. I'm curious to see how you'll do your chain tensioning (zip-tie blocks?). I don't really understand your pocketing methods on the bottom or the need for an upper structure, but I'd imagine you have some sort of reasoning behind it. Nice job though.

[Jeff 801]

Originally Posted by AndyB

Certainly covering our bases with 10 speed controllers, aren't we?

Very nice render. This base looks pretty solid. I'm curious to see how you'll do your chain tensioning (zip-tie blocks?). I don't really understand your pocketing methods on the bottom or the need for an upper structure, but I'd imagine you have some sort of reasoning behind it. Nice job though.

The reason is because the DT is designed for both 6 wheel drive and 8 wheel drive I believe