|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
This is a crab drive system I had worked on a while ago, and I reworked a bit of it not too long ago and decided to share it with the CD community. The assembly is not entirely done (out of my own laziness) but the jist of how everything works is there. Total weigh (excluding chains and some hardware) is 41 lb. Not too bad for a complete and sturdy base. The blue lines are where the chains go, sadly, I a) don't have the chain skillz of 103, and b) did this in ProE where such skillz would be rendered useless anyways; so blue lines will have to suffice. The drive is the standard AM 2-speed (no modification required) and the modules are turned using 2 window motors, mounted in the dark gray frame pieces. The frame is made of 1/8" think, 6" x 2" aluminum extrusion. The modules are assembled into the frame and rotate on 1/16th inch delrin bearings that line the inside and outside of the 6X2 tubing around the modules (notice the black squares around the left most modules). The entire system is modular, with plugs that bolt onto the side plates and slid into the front and back plates (lighter gray). These are held in by drop pins (notice in the top right). Any comments or questions!? feel free to blast me!
17-12-2007 19:11
T3_1565The thing I like the most about this frame design is that the motors are in a gear box of some sort. I seemed to of not thought of that in any crab drive frame I made, but it does seem to make things a bit neater looking and closes things off quite nicely.
Nicely done good sir!
ps. how big are the wheels? (diameter and thickness)
17-12-2007 19:16
evanisthat!Thanks, the entire design is supposed to be as compact and robust as possible.
The wheels are 4" in diameter and 1.5" thick.
17-12-2007 19:28
T3_1565are you considering adding cross beams for support? (I have never made a bot with that big of a outer frame material before so I don't know if it needs it)
17-12-2007 20:03
cbale2000Is it really such a good idea to have the drive motors sticking down that low to the ground? 
17-12-2007 20:05
Tim Baird
You might want to invert the tranny assembly and have the motors point up. If you use it for a game with any kind of ramp, the apex might nail the motors as you try to climb.
Aside from that, nice job! 
17-12-2007 21:47
evanisthat!I don't think cross beams will be needed, with 6" wide supports on the front and back, I doubt it will bend much. I tried to do an FEA of it to test how much force it would take to bend the frame but my computer crashed.
Low motors shouldn't be a problem, as long as the wires are routed safely, besides they are .666" (interesting number, not by design, but curious nonetheless) off the ground, the angle of the picture is a bit deceiving.
If there are ramps in the competition, the trannys can be inverted, but they stick up pretty high, thats why I have them down.
Arefin, we don't need to talk, you know you love this. 
Thanks for the questions!
17-12-2007 23:05
yongkimlengHmm is it a good idea to have 2 gearboxes driving the wheel orientation? Maybe they move at different speeds / distance moved and cause uneven tension on the chains across the two sides..
18-12-2007 00:37
viking1902
|
Hmm is it a good idea to have 2 gearboxes driving the wheel orientation? Maybe they move at different speeds / distance moved and cause uneven tension on the chains across the two sides..
|
18-12-2007 02:37
Nuttyman54
I'm concerned with the chain wrap around some of the directional sprockets (esp. what appears to be the motor sprocket). They definitely have less wrap than recommended, by whatever rule of thumb you go by. I'd be worried about chain slip. Also, how do you intend to tension the chains?
18-12-2007 04:41
Pavan Dave
|
Hmm is it a good idea to have 2 gearboxes driving the wheel orientation? Maybe they move at different speeds / distance moved and cause uneven tension on the chains across the two sides..
|
18-12-2007 11:35
zander_108So even, i like the design, i've seen it before
one question;
i can see the reason for having the motors like that is so the side members can be machined the same
why not have the motor sitting in the middle? and as somebody already mentioned, it might be good to have the CIMs sitting above the frame, in case there are ramps in the game.
19-12-2007 00:40
evanisthat!|
He has a "tank crab" set up right now.
EDIT: How do you plan on controlling this. Are you going to use the "tank crab" where you will have two joysticks or one joystick with some really sick programming? The picture is kind of misleading me. If you decide to link one side of your robot to the other via chain than you will save weight if you don't want to do akerman steering. Anyways let me rephrase my question, what exactly will your crab, when it is all said and done, be able to do? |
19-12-2007 20:04
joeweberGreat ideas and nice CAD, every body has a hundred ways of doing it. It doesn't mater how you do it as long as it works for you. A thought I had with our design is to have the arm rotate with the drive directions. No mater what direction you go the arm will be going that direction. Doing that you can use one joystick, left right drives the turn motors, forward back drives the CIM's. We don't need to rotate the direction of the robot if the arm is always going the direction you are going. That really makes it easy, well except designing an arm that can go 360.