AndyMark alert! Interesting new stuff

[s_forbes]

Surprised I haven't seen this anywhere on CD yet: http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

Not something I would want to use, but I'll bet many teams will love being able to purchase a complete drive assembly. As usual, it comes with many awesome options!

[Chris is me]

I think it looks really cool. My only concern would be if your CG was off to the geared / chained side, then you might have only one CIM on the ground at a time. For that reason I would probably gear drive AND chain drive my module (Goes from 5.4 pounds to 8.4 per side though). Regardless I'm seriously considering it for 2011, with hex output shafts.

[Akash Rastogi]

I was following it since I saw AM post up sketches on facebook. I was really happy to see it and the high level of engineering quality involved.

As with any system that you purchase, there are pros and cons, such as the Swerve Drive from Team221 llc.

11 will most likely purchase one this summer.

[Tom Line]

In looking at that (I admit I was intrigued by how nice it looks) I noticed it has the center shaft set up for a nano and a single cim drive.

It would be REALLY nice if they expanded so you could put a cim on both sides of the center shaft. You could have the option of taking the nano gears out of the ends and using them to use two cims to drive the center shaft.

Then you could use the chain shown here to power one end, and have a sprocket on the center wheel to power the other end.

[ttldomination]

Anyone know why they choose to make it 31" long as compared to a closer 37" with maybe a wide option as well?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Anyone know why they choose to make it 31" long as compared to a closer 37" with maybe a wide option as well?

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

Well I don't understand the shipping, doesn't AM currently ship their C-base at 35".

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0202.html

Why not make the this rail the same length? Or maybe the 2011 game asks for a smaller sizing box

-RC

[EricH]

Originally Posted by R.C.

Or maybe the 2011 game asks for a smaller sizing box

-RC

Which 2011 game: A, B, C, or D (or whatever designation the GDC is using)?

[Jeff 801]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I suspect a couple of reasons:

-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication--I'm not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you'd be making serious trade-offs for it.

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Jeff 801

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by R.C.

Well I don't understand the shipping, doesn't AM currently ship their C-base at 35".

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0202.html

They do--but going down to 31 may allow them to squeeze it into a cheaper box (or get a cheaper shipping rate). That said, I think Jeff may have the better concept.

Originally Posted by Jeff 801

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. You'll still make some trade-offs (especially if the current GDC direction of bumper zone rules continues), but there's nothing stopping you in theory from going down this road.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?

Center is dropped .13" according to specs found below:

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Jeff 801

I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"

Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8' piece of stock with 3" extra

Yes, this is the main reason. The center-to-center distance from the center of the front to back wheel is 27.5". This distance seems to work well with a 4wd 8" Mecanum setup. I predict that this setup will be used many times for applications outside of <em>FIRST</em> Robotics Competition setups.

If the demand is high for this type of setup, then we can vary the length of this tube.

Originally Posted by Mr.G

I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?

Originally Posted by JB987

Center is dropped .13" according to specs found below:

http://www.andymark.biz/am-0689.html

Yep, the center drop is 0.13".

Originally Posted by Billfred

They do--but going down to 31 may allow them to squeeze it into a cheaper box (or get a cheaper shipping rate). That said, I think Jeff may have the better concept.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. You'll still make some trade-offs (especially if the current GDC direction of bumper zone rules continues), but there's nothing stopping you in theory from going down this road.

This design decision has no bearing nor any result from any shipping or GDC decisions (at least, not that I know of). As mentioned above, this setup makes a very clean drive base for people who want to make a simple drive system for their application, whatever that is.

Thank you for all of the input.

Sincerely,
Andy

[Dale]

I, for one, would vote for a longer verison of these nifty rails that doesn't result in the wheels being outside of the frame boundry. That would make attaching bumpers easier. I guess the wheels would stay where they are and the rail would extend another 3" front and back. Teams could always cut them off if they didn't need that extra material.

Ideally, without concern for AndyMark's SKUs, it would be great to have rails optimized for 4", 6" and 8" wheels at FRC lengths.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Dale

I, for one, would vote for a longer verison of these nifty rails that doesn't result in the wheels being outside of the frame boundry. That would make attaching bumpers easier.

Yeah, will AM be selling some bracketry to attach bumpers legally once we all know the rules?