|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
The start of a chassis I am working on. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be tweaked and changed but I figured I would upload a render of what I have so far.
08-12-2008 18:12
chris31This is still being worked on but if you have comments, questions or suggestions feel free to post them.
08-12-2008 20:28
NickELooks good!
With all that pocketing on the front and back rails, I would consider adding a crossbeam in the middle.
08-12-2008 20:29
ironbearsits best to build the chasis heavy and make lighter by cutting holes out as you need that way you dont sacrafice too much strenght. Basic tankdrive?
08-12-2008 20:34
AdamHeard
what is the wall thickness on the extrusion?
if it is 1/8" and pocketed, I would recommend switching to 1/16" and don't pocket it. Similar weight, less work, and depending on the pocket pattern, stronger.
08-12-2008 20:39
chris31|
Looks good!
With all that pocketing on the front and back rails, I would consider adding a crossbeam in the middle. |
|
what is the wall thickness on the extrusion?
if it is 1/8" and pocketed, I would recommend switching to 1/16" and don't pocket it. Similar weight, less work, and depending on the pocket pattern, stronger. |
|
its best to build the chasis heavy and make lighter by cutting holes out as you need that way you dont sacrafice too much strenght. Basic tankdrive?
|
08-12-2008 20:44
AdamHeard
.15 is not a common commercially available thickness for extrusion, are these made from sheet metal?
Either way, that's some thick stuff, for that tall of a frame member, I'd recommend thinner material with less pocketing.
08-12-2008 20:47
R.C.
Great job on this and it looks nice. The thing I like about FIRST is that there are so many different designs and they each have pro's and con's to them. This design is a great design and probably a pretty light chassis. Just include someway of tensioning the chain (Andymark's New Chain Tensioner is coming out!). BTW great CAD JOB, more views would be nice.
08-12-2008 20:55
chris31|
Great job on this and it looks nice. The thing I like about FIRST is that there are so many different designs and they each have pro's and con's to them. This design is a great design and probably a pretty light chassis. Just include someway of tensioning the chain (Andymark's New Chain Tensioner is coming out!). BTW great CAD JOB, more views would be nice.
|
|
.15 is not a common commercially available thickness for extrusion, are these made from sheet metal?
Either way, that's some thick stuff, for that tall of a frame member, I'd recommend thinner material with less pocketing. |
08-12-2008 21:02
AdamHeard
|
Yeah. I have a few ideas starting to be drawn. Just nothing is final in CAD yet.
Its McMaster 1630T14. So you recommending something thinner with less pocketing. Thats doable. Im still playing around with best ideas for removing weight and keeping strength. |
08-12-2008 21:12
chris31|
Oh wow, that's THICK stuff. The base is .15 thick, but the legs are .26. HEAVY stuff, 2.2 lbs a foot or so.
If you do use it, find another supplier; $66 for 5' of that is ridiculous. |
08-12-2008 21:14
MusicninjaYou could try dropping the middle pairs of wheels just like a half an inch, to make it easier to turn...
08-12-2008 21:17
NoahTheBoa
|
You could try dropping the middle pairs of wheels just like a half an inch, to make it easier to turn...
|
08-12-2008 21:19
chris31|
You could try dropping the middle pairs of wheels just like a half an inch, to make it easier to turn...
|
08-12-2008 21:23
Cory
|
Ok. I'm still reading up on differnt distances to drop the middle wheel.
|
08-12-2008 22:45
R.C.
|
Yeah. I have a few ideas starting to be drawn. Just nothing is final in CAD yet.
Its McMaster 1630T14. So you recommending something thinner with less pocketing. Thats doable. Im still playing around with best ideas for removing weight and keeping strength. |
09-12-2008 17:56
chris31Just the 6 pieces of C channel totally 14.13 pounds whereas the same length of 1x2 with 1/6in walls is about 7.7 so I see what you are saying about weight.
Cory, whats so hard about machining C channel? Im not a machinist but the machinist didnt say anything when I drew a quick concept for him.
09-12-2008 18:00
AdamHeard
|
Just the 6 pieces of C channel totally 14.13 pounds whereas the same length of 1x2 with 1/6in walls is about 7.7 so I see what you are saying about weight.
Cory, whats so hard about machining C channel? Im not a machinist but the machinist didnt say anything when I drew a quick concept for him. |
09-12-2008 20:12
meastmanOur team's robot for the last few years has had the motors directly drive the middle wheel. This could make turning easier if you drove those wheels instead
09-12-2008 20:15
gorrillanot to be negative but,
could just save yourself the trouble and use the kitbot chasssis....................
would loose the cool factor though.........
09-12-2008 22:26
chris31Adam, that makes sense. Thanks for the input.
|
Our team's robot for the last few years has had the motors directly drive the middle wheel. This could make turning easier if you drove those wheels instead
|
|
not to be negative but,
could just save yourself the trouble and use the kitbot chasssis.................... would loose the cool factor though......... |
10-12-2008 16:50
gorrilla|
Adam, that makes sense. Thanks for the input.
All six wheels are powered in this design. Well, that kind of defeats the purpose of having the chassis design the way you want it and work to your needs. It also wouldnt be much of a learning experience to just bolt some frame material together. |
10-12-2008 17:30
chris31|
yeah but it saves money and valuable time.
any other teams weld theirs? |
10-12-2008 18:04
gorrilla|
Sorry, Im not really looking for recommendations on why I should use the kitbot chassis.
|
10-12-2008 18:07
sdcantrell56Now is the time to be designing new drivetrains, and telling a team to just use the kit frame right now is not really a good way to encourage new development and growth. Yes in some instances and for some teams it would be better to just use the kit frame; however, a lot of teams can pull off a better custom chassis that fits there needs perfectly. Also we don't even know if we will be given the same kit frame this season.
10-12-2008 18:18
gorrilla|
Now is the time to be designing new drivetrains, and telling a team to just use the kit frame right now is not really a good way to encourage new development and growth. Yes in some instances and for some teams it would be better to just use the kit frame; however, a lot of teams can pull off a better custom chassis that fits there needs perfectly. Also we don't even know if we will be given the same kit frame this season.
|
10-12-2008 18:25
sdcantrell56You should look into having standoffs between the plates. That would add a ton of strength.
10-12-2008 19:07
chris31|
You should look into having standoffs between the plates. That would add a ton of strength.
|
10-12-2008 19:19
sdcantrell56If you have the resources, I would recomend making your own standoffs out of delrin. This way they could be a larger diameter and distribute the load better and still be lighter than aluminum standoffs.
10-12-2008 19:26
AdamHeard
|
If you have the resources, I would recomend making your own standoffs out of delrin. This way they could be a larger diameter and distribute the load better and still be lighter than aluminum standoffs.
|
10-12-2008 20:38
sdcantrell56|
If the delrin standoffs are threaded, they will be much lighter than aluminum overall, but the threads won't hold up real well.
If the they are thru holes, they bolt increases the weight a lot as it is rather long. I'd Imagine an aluminum standoff with tapped ends is lighter than a delrin standoff with a thru bolt of comparable strength, |
10-12-2008 20:52
chris31|
That is a very good point. I have actually not thought about that before. One nice thing about a thru-bolt with a delrin spacer is that you could buy delrin round stock and make the spacers yourself saving a ton of money. We spent $150 just on standoffs for our drivetrain last year which used COTS threaded standoffs.
|
11-12-2008 09:04
rally_racin'_94how would you get it to turn with 6 wheel drive because all the wheels have a sprocket
11-12-2008 09:58
gorrilla|
how would you get it to turn with 6 wheel drive because all the wheels have a sprocket
|
11-12-2008 11:43
chris31|
if all the wheels are powered it shouldent have a problem turning............
its tank drive presumably not car steering......... |
|
how would you get it to turn with 6 wheel drive because all the wheels have a sprocket
|