|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
You really should post your interface with the frame, that has a much bigger effect on performance than what is shown here.
Also, those aren't snap rings and probably won't hold. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
What you want are snap rings or E-rings.
We like snap rings. http://www.mcmaster.com/param/images...a189-120px.gif |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
Quote:
Otherwise, this looks great! Very compact and light. Is there now a belt sprocket reduction inside the module like JesseK suggested? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
me's likum 10-32s and washas
mike d |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
I'd recommend you just get rid of snap rings altogether if you have access to a lathe. Lathe out and tap the ends of each shaft for a #10-32 or #8-32 bolt and use a thread locker. We did that for the first time this year on a couple of rods for the kicker and not only were they very robust they also look pretty sharp.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
Quote:
Snap rings are lighter, quicker to change (one of my kids is a ninja with snap ring pliers, can change a wheel out in like 12 seconds total), and require less machine time than tapping the ends. And for anything that rotates, I've found end tapping has a tendency to back out, even with threadlocker. It may take a long time to, but it's just a risk you don't need to take. Quote:
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
Wow a lot of questions to answer.
Okay this is actually about 3 days old now. and I fixed a lot of the concerns after doing a little more research on swerves as well as watching the robonauts conference. Now the clips are gone. And replaced with bolts on the ends using a lathe on the shaft. Also thrust bearings were modified to fit with the base. The wheel is connecfted with the belt sprocket so the bottom axel is dead. I will post the new one now that the version 2.0 is up. I will also show how it connects with the base. Thanks I really appreciate you guys helping me out with this. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
If the axle is dead, you could use a steel pipe instead of a solid shaft. Then, you could tap the ends and put a bolt in. We use this method on all of our dead-shaft drivetrain applications, in either 3/8" or 1/2", depending on the stresses. Most years we use all 3/8", except this year we used 1/2" on some of the wheels to handle the bump better. This is very similar to the method above, except you wouldn't need to lathe the end out of the shaft
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0
Thanks for the tip. That is a quick cad fix.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| pic: 1671 Swerve Module | steelerborn | Extra Discussion | 14 | 20-04-2010 08:49 |
| pic: Swerve Module Concept (View 1) | Dave McLaughlin | Extra Discussion | 15 | 16-06-2009 22:36 |
| pic: stangs swerve module | Aren_Hill | Extra Discussion | 8 | 23-04-2007 08:15 |
| pic: Swerve! (Module) | =Martin=Taylor= | Extra Discussion | 13 | 09-07-2006 19:57 |