AndyMark alert! Interesting new stuff

[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?

[IndySam]

If you though AM's new introductions weren't enough, then ......


Tri-Lambda Drive Platform am-0666

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by IndySam

If you though AM's new introductions weren't enough, then ......


Tri-Lambda Drive Platform am-0666

This must be expected to be used for off-season activity.
Unless the rules change drastically this is over the $$$ limit for a single purchase.

It looks like fun though...

[Akash Rastogi]

I don't know guys, I was much more interested in this...


http://www.andymark.biz/am-0654.html

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

This must be expected to be used for off-season activity.
Unless the rules change drastically this is over the $$$ limit for a single purchase.

It looks like fun though...

There is only so much money to be made from FIRST, and I know AndyMark has been venturing into other product lines. I imagine this is geared as a general purpose mobility platform and not specifically for FRC use.

[Dale]

With regard to bumper mounting and longer Nano Tubes, I emailed Andy Baker about this and got this reply:

Thank you for this note. We are working on a bumper attachment design that is efficient, simple, and effective. If we can't come up with a good solution for this, then we will offer a longer version of the same tube, as you are requesting.

Sincerely,
Andy

[Chris is me]

I'm interested in the weight of the Toughbox Mini versus the Toughbox before getting super duper excited about it.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'm interested in the weight of the Toughbox Mini versus the Toughbox before getting super duper excited about it.

Toughbox Mini weight: 1.94 pounds
Toughbox weight: 2.38 pounds

So, if 2 gearboxes are used on the robot, then 0.88 pounds are saved if Toughbox Minis are used. This weight savings is the main reason why we are calling it "mini".

Sincerely,
Andy

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Toughbox Mini weight: 1.94 pounds
Toughbox weight: 2.38 pounds

So, if 2 gearboxes are used on the robot, then 0.88 pounds are saved if Toughbox Minis are used. This weight savings is the main reason why we are calling it "mini".

Sincerely,
Andy

I can't clearly see from the pictures there, but what is the purpose of the finned housing?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I can't clearly see from the pictures there, but what is the purpose of the finned housing?

These look much like cooling fins, but as you know, they are obviously not. We have gotten this question often.

I wanted to support the motor fully AND provide strength to the motor mounting screws. The side of the housing (without the fins) is as close to the CIM motor mounting screws and CIM Gear as they can be. Then, the fins are present to provide the full face of the CIM motor with support, so it does not wiggle any. So, with the CIM motor securely mounted and supported, it is a nice setup.

Thanks for asking,
Andy

[DonRotolo]

Very cool testing video, too. Perhaps a little excessive, but that Mark seems to be a sadist when it comes to machinery...