|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
A week later than we'd hoped, we finished the drivetrain for our 2007 robot. We have video of it driving that we'll likely put up on YouTube or similar soon.
It's a flat 6WD with custom, single-speed gearboxes geared at 17.5:1. Its speed sits somewhere around 6 ft/s -- slower than what we've run for the past few seasons, but purposefully so. The wheels are 6" diameter Kitbot wheels on the center with AndyMark omniwheels at all four corners. Traction is great and it turns on a dime.
Overall weight as shown -- minus the battery and the plate it sits upon -- is 41 lbs. and change. The electrical board is 7 lbs., each gearbox is also 7 lbs., and the wheels, chain, axles, sprockets and frame make up the difference. The front and back rails haven't been lightened yet as we're awaiting a finalized design for other components and want to ensure we can securely mount them to the frame. Lightening those parts will reduce the weight another 2 or 3 lbs.
21-01-2007 14:42
sonofdad123nice setup. the organization on the electronics looks superb. why didn't y'all go with the mecanum drive this year? it seemed like the full range of motion would come in handy for navigating around the rack... i guess this means that you guys have an awesome mechanism under construction :-)
21-01-2007 14:47
GMAdanThe drive train looks nice and organized, good job. Do you plan on putting some type of gaurdrails or bumpers to protect the sides?
21-01-2007 14:53
Madison
|
nice setup. the organization on the electronics looks superb. why didn't y'all go with the mecanum drive this year? it seemed like the full range of motion would come in handy for navigating around the rack... i guess this means that you guys have an awesome mechanism under construction :-)
|
|
The drive train looks nice and organized, good job. Do you plan on putting some type of gaurdrails or bumpers to protect the sides?
|
21-01-2007 15:08
Richard Wallace
|
... Currently, there are no plans to put anything outboard of the wheels for protection, but if we have some weight available to us, I'd consider it.
|
21-01-2007 15:30
Ben Piecuch
Madison,
How well do the side panels take the weight of the gearboxes and motors? With all the weight reduction you've done on the side channels, it seems as though you're reduced their torsional stability as well. We're mouting the 2x CIM adapter into the Banebot tranny, and we're mounting that in a similar fashion. The Banebots, with the two motors, weigh 9 lbs a piece. I have a feeling that we'll need to support the back ends of the motors. Have you come across a similar issue?
Overall, I LOVE this setup. It's very similar to what you used last year, but the robustness is so much greater. One additional feature I would add is a row of 1/4" holes (spaced 1" apart) along the tops of all the rails, similar to the kit chassis. This allows you to mount whatever superstructure you want, where ever you want. We've done this with our sheetmetal chassis this year, nothing could be easier!
BEN
21-01-2007 15:41
sanddrag|
One additional feature I would add is a row of 1/4" holes (spaced 1" apart) along the tops of all the rails, similar to the kit chassis. This allows you to mount whatever superstructure you want, where ever you want.
|
If you design it all out first, you don't need any uncecessary holes, and in my opinion that is elegant.
21-01-2007 16:54
Scott358Beautiful worksmanship plus an extremely manuverable design.
One question... do you plan anything (i.e. a push down friction pad?) that prevents being spun like a top by a defender, or is that not a concern?
21-01-2007 17:05
flamefixedVery neat, organized work. You may want to consider lessening the front and back bumpers (didnt know exactly what to call them) because they are perfect candidates to get hooked and cause a nasty ordeal.
21-01-2007 17:14
Madison
|
I'm sure you already know this, but for the benefit of others like me who are admiring your work, I'll point out (anyway) that you have 15 lb. of standard <R37> bumpers available if you choose to use them. A little more traction and protection are often helpful.
Also, I really like this traction set-up. My team is planning a conceptually similar layout using four aluminum AndyMark omniwheels and two slightly modified AndyMark FIRST (2007 KoP) wheels driven by four CIMS. Your set-up will have all that ours has, and a bag of chips. Very nice work. ![]() |
|
Madison,
How well do the side panels take the weight of the gearboxes and motors? With all the weight reduction you've done on the side channels, it seems as though you're reduced their torsional stability as well. We're mouting the 2x CIM adapter into the Banebot tranny, and we're mounting that in a similar fashion. The Banebots, with the two motors, weigh 9 lbs a piece. I have a feeling that we'll need to support the back ends of the motors. Have you come across a similar issue? Overall, I LOVE this setup. It's very similar to what you used last year, but the robustness is so much greater. One additional feature I would add is a row of 1/4" holes (spaced 1" apart) along the tops of all the rails, similar to the kit chassis. This allows you to mount whatever superstructure you want, where ever you want. We've done this with our sheetmetal chassis this year, nothing could be easier! BEN |
21-01-2007 17:50
EricgehrkenGreat job 488. I knew when I saw the pictures of the parts made that it was going to be an insane drive base. I think I saw an annotated drawing of that back in November. What's the footprint?
21-01-2007 18:18
gburlisonSounds like you don't plan to use that plate from the 2006 kitbot.
21-01-2007 18:23
Lil' Lavery
Now, I am intrigued about why you chose such a low designed top speed. My normal assumption when teams have slow design speeds is that they wanted more pushing power, but I know better than that with 488. Especially considering you're still using a drive-train designed for precision turning, and are in the 5', 110 lb. weight division.
22-01-2007 00:09
Madison
|
Beautiful worksmanship plus an extremely manuverable design.
One question... do you plan anything (i.e. a push down friction pad?) that prevents being spun like a top by a defender, or is that not a concern? |
|
Very neat, organized work. You may want to consider lessening the front and back bumpers (didnt know exactly what to call them) because they are perfect candidates to get hooked and cause a nasty ordeal.
|
|
Great job 488. I knew when I saw the pictures of the parts made that it was going to be an insane drive base. I think I saw an annotated drawing of that back in November. What's the footprint?
|
|
Sounds like you don't plan to use that plate from the 2006 kitbot.
|
|
Now, I am intrigued about why you chose such a low designed top speed. My normal assumption when teams have slow design speeds is that they wanted more pushing power, but I know better than that with 488. Especially considering you're still using a drive-train designed for precision turning, and are in the 5', 110 lb. weight division.
|
22-01-2007 16:55
Madison
As promised, I've uploaded video of one of our first test runs to YouTube.
It can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cJ7oXZHh3vU
Our programming group is working on implementing PID control so that we can, should the need arise, turn its rotation speed down a few notches 
22-01-2007 18:07
Scott358"It's not a concern primarily because a defender ought not be wasting their time with us..."
Why would a defender not play defense against you, unless you are planning on just playing defense... or perhaps you feel they can't?
Based on your video, it will be hard to keep up with you!!!
22-01-2007 18:51
Madison
|
"It's not a concern primarily because a defender ought not be wasting their time with us..."
Why would a defender not play defense against you, unless you are planning on just playing defense... or perhaps you feel they can't? Based on your video, it will be hard to keep up with you!!! |