Non-treaded wheels?

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

Has anyone ever taken one of the kit wheels and cut a tread pattern into it?

We have in the past. It works great until the edges of the pattern wear off, which happens fairly quickly.

[RyanCahoon]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware.

How much does the lacing protrude? Would there be any risk of violating, for example:

Originally Posted by 2010 R08

Traction devices shall not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments.

--Ryan

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

Might have also drilled the holes one size to large?

True, I know that we did this for a couple of rivet holes and the rivets would just pop out freely.

-RC

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by R.C.

True, I know that we did this for a couple of rivet holes and the rivets would just pop out freely.

-RC

I don't think so, but it's possible.
Finally after I had replaced all of them I put some 3M-2part epoxy on the ends of each, that held them for the remainder of the regional.

[AdamHeard]

I've seen a lot of teams rivet too much. Two rivets side by side in 1" is not necessary, we've gotten away with 1 rivet centered on the 1" face on each end. If you "cut" the tread too much with holes, it gets weak and wants to start to break apart at the hole.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

The failure would happen when one of the ends would come loose then take the rest with it. Each end had two rivets, in between each spoke would also have two. Most of the time the rivets did not come out, the tread just tore a hole in the rubber around the rivet.

This sounds like the holes through the tread may have been too big. They need to be a very tight fit so you can barely get the rivet through it. The woven foundation of the conveyor belt tread is very tough and will not tear through if the hole is tight enough. And yes, large-head rivets are better. Our swerve drive put severe strain on our treads this year, but we have never had a single tread come loose when properly riveted.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware. Here is a sneak peek. Later this summer, this method will be in place for all AndyMark Plaction Wheels.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

So how would these work with the "no metal on carpet" rule? Assuming that it stays that is.

ChrisH

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by RyanCahoon

How much does the lacing protrude? Would there be any risk of violating, for example: (R08)

--Ryan

Originally Posted by ChrisH

So how would these work with the "no metal on carpet" rule? Assuming that it stays that is.

ChrisH

The application process suggests that some of the tread is ground away so that the metal lacing does not stick above the tread. The lacing has smooth edges and does not help in gaining any traction. The sole purpose is to lace the ends of the tread together.

In my opinion, rule R08, is not a "no metal on carpet rule". I have heard that some inspectors call it as such, and they are incorrect (again, in my opinion). Rule R08 is there to not allow "traction devices" that are metal, to assist with gaining traction to a system.

In the little bit of area where these laces touch the ground, I predict that there is LESS traction than there would be if there was no lacing. These are smooth, rounded metal hardware items.

I hope this helps. If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Andy B.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

The application process suggests that some of the tread is ground away so that the metal lacing does not stick above the tread. The lacing has smooth edges and does not help in gaining any traction. The sole purpose is to lace the ends of the tread together.

In my opinion, rule R08, is not a "no metal on carpet rule". I have heard that some inspectors call it as such, and they are incorrect (again, in my opinion). Rule R08 is there to not allow "traction devices" that are metal, to assist with gaining traction to a system.

In the little bit of area where these laces touch the ground, I predict that there is LESS traction than there would be if there was no lacing. These are smooth, rounded metal hardware items.

I hope this helps. If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Andy B.

And thus grounding wires are legal, but still, the tread is a traction device. Couldn't the laces be considered a surface feature of, or an attachment on, the tread?

[Garret]

My team screws the conveyor belting from McMaster onto the AM KOP wheels. We have found this to be a relatively cheap and simple alternative to plaction wheels.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Well, it sort of is: "Traction devices shall not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments."

On the other hand, the rule is clumsily written on several levels (e.g. "shall not" isn't necessarily an imperative), it hasn't been (uniformly) enforced that way for practical reasons, and there's no point in phrasing it that way (because metal isn't inherently unsuitable for use on carpet).

That's one rule I'd especially like to have a kick at fixing, because it's been an annoyance for several years.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's one rule I'd especially like to have a kick at fixing, because it's been an annoyance for several years.

I agree, it definitely needs to be fixed.

The intent of this rule, if I understand it correctly, is to not allow metal treads, as on TechnoKats and Wildstang robots in 2002. Also, it is aimed at not allowing file cards, which were also made famous by Team Hammond in 2002, and then copied by many teams that same year.

Maybe this rule can be scrutinized to death so that no metal can ever touch the carpet, but I seriously think that is not the intent. As a member of one of the teams listed above who had something on their robot which resulted in this rule, I would hope to understand the intent.

What surprises me is that well-meaning people look at this rule and automatically think that it's a "no metal on carpet rule".

I will start a new thread. Sorry for hi-jacking this one.

Andy

[harryji369]

have you ever tried skyway wheels
you can get them here
http://skywaywheels.com/products_002.htm

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

We at AndyMark are working on a new tread-attachment method, using conveyor belt lacing hardware. Here is a sneak peek. Later this summer, this method will be in place for all AndyMark Plaction Wheels.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

I actually like the current set up quite a bit.

Why?

Because I'm able to remove the rivets, then yank the tread out without removing the wheels to split them apart (our wheels were captured on both sides this year).

While the conveyor alligator clips would certainly work, I'd like it even better if it was a small metal detail screwed into the wheel with 2 screws that had teeth on either side that pinch it against the plastic.

[Tony.Wu]

We have also used plaction wheels, but after replacing the treads multiple times we drilled a couple of holes and riveted it. (Along with some contact cement) it works like a charm, treads never fell off again.