pic: Latest Drivetain Assemby Render

[roboticWanderor]

loading photo ...

[=Martin=Taylor=]

If you decide to do one of these kinds of designs, I suggest you think seriously about how to mount the bumpers.

We had a similar cantilevered system last year and it worked great. But over the course of three competitions the bumper mounts got kinda bent and the bumpers started rubbing on the wheels.

We had to periodically pry the bumpers away from the wheels to keep it running smooth.

Looks really nice, but it seems to be missing something. How exactly do you plan on tensioning the chain? The bearing blocks are there, but there doesn't appear to be a system for pulling them.


Looking good!

[Dan Petrovic]

Wow, looks pretty good.

What does the weight analysis say (if it gives you anything of worth)?

[roboticWanderor]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

Looks really nice, but it seems to be missing something. How exactly do you plan on tensioning the chain? The bearing blocks are there, but there doesn't appear to be a system for pulling them.

HA HA! that is for me to know and you to find out! the bearing blocks do not move my friend!
sorry I'm kind of exited about this design

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Wow, looks pretty good.

What does the weight analysis say (if it gives you anything of worth)?

in the neighborhood of 25 -30 lbs for everything including motors, sprockets etc.

[blaxbb]

Originally Posted by roboticWanderor

HA HA! that is for me to know and you to find out! the bearing blocks do not move my friend!
sorry I'm kind of exited about this design

hmmm are the slotted holes on the motor mount part of it?

[roboticWanderor]

Originally Posted by blaxbb

hmmm are the slotted holes on the motor mount part of it?

a very important part.

[DarkFlame145]

Just a quick question, why did you go with 4 motors all in different trans? How strong will it be, I mean I think making a drive pod around the wheels would make it so much stronger

[roboticWanderor]

Originally Posted by DarkFlame145

Just a quick question, why did you go with 4 motors all in different trans? How strong will it be, I mean I think making a drive pod around the wheels would make it so much stronger

simplicity, serviceability, and weight. As it turns out, my dual cim gearbox, CIMs and all will weigh more than two single CIM gearboxes, negating the advantage of such a component. this setup allows the use of less chain, and fewer parts in total. It also has redundancy in case one gearbox or motor or speed controller fails, the robot will still be able to move. also, the modular gearboxes can be swapped out quickly, allowing repairs to be made to the faulty module while the spare takes its place.

this design only uses 2 loops of #25 chain per side, both of which are easily tensioned, so weight is saved in that respect, as well and simplifying the number of sprockets needed to transmit power to all 6 wheels.

[Nikhil Bajaj]

Originally Posted by roboticWanderor

simplicity, serviceability, and weight. As it turns out, my dual cim gearbox, CIMs and all will weigh more than two single CIM gearboxes, negating the advantage of such a component.

Well, the advantage isn't completely negated. First of all, if you put two CIMs through one transmission you can usually make it so that you have less total gear/sprocket meshes and therefore less efficiency losses that way--which although small, start to stack up, especially with planetary transmissions. Plus, in shifting transmissions, it can help reduce the number of actuations required to shift (for example, two servos or pistons instead of four.) In that case, it could possibly still be a weight savings in terms of the overall system. But the way you're doing it could be better from a weight distribution perspective, too.

All that said, you're a total CAD champion in my book. Seriously, great work, really professional looking.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Hey, just a quick question about solidworks (you obviously seem to know a lot about it)

I got the free student package in the mail and it says on the back that it includes photoworks - but I can't seem to find it, or its toolbar. Do I have to enable it or something?

I'd like to try rendering stuff

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

Hey, just a quick question about solidworks (you obviously seem to know a lot about it)

I got the free student package in the mail and it says on the back that it includes photoworks - but I can't seem to find it, or its toolbar. Do I have to enable it or something?

I'd like to try rendering stuff

Check under Tools>Add-Ins

That dialog box should give you the option to turn it on for just that session or at startup.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

Hey, just a quick question about solidworks (you obviously seem to know a lot about it)

I got the free student package in the mail and it says on the back that it includes photoworks - but I can't seem to find it, or its toolbar. Do I have to enable it or something?

I'd like to try rendering stuff

Yes, you do have to enable photoworks, but its quick and easy.

1. While in SolidWorks, go to the tools menu, and click Add-ins.
2. Click the checkbox next to photoworks (and if you want it to run every time you run solidworks, click the checkbox on the right as well)

This will enable:

• A new tab in the left column with material and environment options and such
• A tab in the right browser with info about different materials
• The PhotoWorks toolbar can now be shown by clicking on a blank space on the existing toolbar and selecting photoworks.

You can just play around with it if you like, but I reccomend the tutorials that come with solidworks (Help Menu > Tutorials)


EDIT: M. Krass beat me to it.