|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
I tried to design this drivetrain to be as cheap and easy to manufacture as possible. Required tools are a drill and a saw, although drill press and bandsaw would be preferable, and the cost of all of the components comes out to around $400 (not including the toughboxes).
12-08-2008 08:37 AM
Andrew SchreiberLooks easy to make, the only concern I would have is can it take a hit? Aside from that, what is the weight and where do I mount bumpers? (assuming they are legal) And how do you tension the chain?
Just a thought but could you save weight by using thin sheet metal as your belly pan?
12-08-2008 08:40 AM
goffchrisIt is not completely clear from the CAD, but remember that:
1) The middle wheels need to be offset lower, or the robot won't be able to turn easily. We are using a .5 cm offset this year, but I have read about teams using 1/8 inch.
2) Many teams use omni wheels on one or both ends (not the middle) to aid in turning. The omnis compromise pushing power a bit, but make turning much easier.
12-08-2008 09:38 AM
xxsumzDoesn't look very stable. Maybe its the wheels or the actual frame. What would happen if it were hit on an angle? Tip over?!
12-08-2008 10:00 AM
MrForbes
I assume the sides and ends are made of some hardwood, such as oak? and the bottom and corner braces are made of a thin plywood? Looks strong! would the weight be about 15 lbs for the wood parts? (just a guess)
Perhaps you could add some vertical pieces of aluminum angle to the corners, to easily mount bumpers to?
12-08-2008 10:06 AM
Andrew Schreiber|
Doesn't look very stable. Maybe its the wheels or the actual frame. What would happen if it were hit on an angle? Tip over?!
|
12-08-2008 12:27 PM
GUIThis is basically an all wood live-axle version of our 2008 chassis, which worked great (except perhaps the strange chain path I used...). Looks good, but I think it would be preferable to mount the transmissions in the center, so you can use corner plates like on the front on all three corners.
12-08-2008 12:30 PM
s_forbes|
Looks easy to make, the only concern I would have is can it take a hit? Aside from that, what is the weight and where do I mount bumpers? (assuming they are legal) And how do you tension the chain?
Just a thought but could you save weight by using thin sheet metal as your belly pan? |
)|
It is not completely clear from the CAD, but remember that:
1) The middle wheels need to be offset lower, or the robot won't be able to turn easily. We are using a .5 cm offset this year, but I have read about teams using 1/8 inch. 2) Many teams use omni wheels on one or both ends (not the middle) to aid in turning. The omnis compromise pushing power a bit, but make turning much easier. |
|
Originally Posted by GUI
Looks good, but I think it would be preferable to mount the transmissions in the center, so you can use corner plates like on the front on all three corners.
|
12-08-2008 01:15 PM
Madison
Can you describe the power transmission components in more depth?
Assembling reliable power transmission schemes is the most difficult part of building a FIRST robot's drive train. Without learning more about why you've selected an unorthodox series of chain paths and wheel locations, I would be hesitant in recommending this to any teams with few resources.
12-08-2008 01:34 PM
Alan Anderson
|
Actually, having the transmissions in the back has some neat advantages. Since the center wheel is dropped, the rear wheels don't carry as much load.
|
12-08-2008 01:51 PM
sdcantrell56Overall I like it but why wouldn't you just run all the chain on the inside? Also Maybe look into 8wd with the transmission centered and chained to the center pair of wheels. It would increase ramp-climbing ability while keeping the same center of gravity.
12-08-2008 09:47 PM
s_forbes|
Can you describe the power transmission components in more depth?
Assembling reliable power transmission schemes is the most difficult part of building a FIRST robot's drive train. Without learning more about why you've selected an unorthodox series of chain paths and wheel locations, I would be hesitant in recommending this to any teams with few resources. |

|
I don't see your reasoning. The way I'm looking at it, the rear wheels carry more load than if the center wheel were not lowered (up to half the robot's weight or even more, depending on the center of gravity). They just do it intermittently -- which seems likely to cause greater shock loads on the axle when the robot rocks backward.
|
|
Originally Posted by sdcantrell56
Overall I like it but why wouldn't you just run all the chain on the inside? Also Maybe look into 8wd with the transmission centered and chained to the center pair of wheels. It would increase ramp-climbing ability while keeping the same center of gravity.
|
12-08-2008 10:21 PM
sdcantrell56Running all of the chain on the inside would not increase the distance between the wheel and the bearings at all. It would simply require a longer axle on the inside of the frame.
12-08-2008 11:25 PM
gburlisonHow fast do you estimate it will go?
Direct drive off of ToughBoxes seems a little fast.
Could the wheels be any smaller?
I like the chain on the outside.
It makes it easy to get to the chain and it simplifies the ToughBox mounting since you don't have to make spacers between the frame and the gearbox.
12-08-2008 11:45 PM
s_forbes|
Running all of the chain on the inside would not increase the distance between the wheel and the bearings at all. It would simply require a longer axle on the inside of the frame.
|
|
How fast do you estimate it will go?
Direct drive off of ToughBoxes seems a little fast. Could the wheels be any smaller? I like the chain on the outside. It makes it easy to get to the chain and it simplifies the ToughBox mounting since you don't have to make spacers between the frame and the gearbox. |
12-09-2008 12:15 AM
sdcantrell56I am talking about not having the transmission output shaft directly driving a wheel. Maybe put the transmission between a pair of wheels and chain them to the transmission and then chain the middle one to the last unchained wheel. As you have it right now there is a large cantilevered load on the output shaft which I would be wary of.
I am also wary of a bearing bore in wood like you and the few wood designs I have worked on have all used aluminum bearing blocks to hold the bearings.
12-09-2008 12:27 AM
Tom BottiglieriWood bases are a totally viable option. Many teams have done them successfully in the past (173, 61, 195 jump to mind).
From my experience, the holes tend to "stretch" over time. We used T-nuts to anchor everything to the base to help with this. Therefore, pressing bearings into the side plates seems pretty risky.
What type of wood are you planning on using? We used 1/2" (9 ply) Baltic birch.
12-09-2008 12:27 AM
GUIIt would be very easy to put a 1/16" wall aluminum tube in the bearing holes, which would eliminate the risk of the framerail cracking/widening around the bearing.
I think the transmission would like it much better if there are bearings supporting the output shaft in the frame.
Tom, the current thought is that the frame members would be oak, and the sheets would be thin plywood.
12-09-2008 12:37 AM
Tom Bottiglieri|
It would be very easy to put a 1/16" wall aluminum tube in the bearing holes, which would eliminate the risk of the framerail cracking/widening around the bearing.
. |
12-09-2008 12:38 AM
sdcantrell56I don't think using another tube in the hole will really help the problem. You need to have the bearings in some type of plate and then the plate fastened to the wood with bolts or t-nuts to spread the load. The best thing to do that I can think of is to have to plates of aluminum sandwiching the wood and then have them bolted together with bearings in each plate. Also, why use hardwood? Baltic birch is more than strong enough and is a lot more uniform than hardwood lumber. You can always layer 2 pieces of plywood to get a thicker piece.
On a side note. I have been designing a ton of drivetrains with wood and I just keep coming back to aluminum. Wood although cheaper, seems to be a bit more difficult to build and design with to get the same functionality. Maybe I just haven;t come up with the right thing yet but so far my aluminum designs are winning in my mind.
12-09-2008 12:42 AM
AdamHeard
|
On a side note. I have been designing a ton of drivetrains with wood and I just keep coming back to aluminum. Wood although cheaper, seems to be a bit more difficult to build and design with to get the same functionality. Maybe I just haven;t come up with the right thing yet but so far my aluminum designs are winning in my mind.
|
12-09-2008 12:45 AM
GUIThe load is mostly vertical, and the problem i can forsee is the wood being too soft/malleable to handle the load in the relatively concentrated area of the bearing. By using something like a 6061 aluminum tube, we could easily spread the load out and reduce the chance of wallering/widening the bearing holes.
We want to use hardwood because it is strong and available in boards the size/shape we need. We are looking at wood because it provides an easy way to do live axles with minimum machining. The robot in the rendering would require only basic cutting, gluing, screwing, and drilling. Not to mention it would be easier than previous chassis we have done, for a little gain in weight and simplicity.
12-09-2008 01:01 AM
MrForbes
|
Also, why use hardwood? Baltic birch is more than strong enough and is a lot more uniform than hardwood lumber.
|
12-09-2008 01:02 AM
Tom Bottiglieri|
Exactly, there seems to be a frenzy of people wanting wood bases because of how "Simple" and "Easy" they are. So far, I've yet to see a design or setup that really is simpler or easier than a well designed base using more conventional materials.
|
12-09-2008 01:07 AM
dtengineering
Wood makes for some great possibilities. Our arm in 2005 ( http://www.trobotics.ca/#MAXX ) weighed only three pounds, but could support the weight of two judges bouncing on it in a three point bending test. We brought along a prototype for them to bounce on.... the rest of the robot couldn't handle the stress, but the wooden arm could... easily! I will admit to being rather surprised how strong it was, and didn't actually believe my fellow technical mentor, Gregg, that it would work until I saw him sitting on it!
The next year ( http://www.trobotics.ca/#MAXX%202 )we machined our turret on our CNC router, and pressed the bearings right into the baltic birch turret sides. Not exactly the same impact loading as on a drivetrain, but we're still shooting nerf balls from that thing. The main sprocket on the ball loader ( http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/22924 ) was mahogany, if I recall... and you'll note the Maple bearing blocks. We also machined up a Maple motor mount for the big CIM to run our intake roller mechanism.
At this point we had pretty much fallen in love with baltic birch, so we built an elevator and actuator out of it http://www.trobotics.ca/#MAXX%202007 and last year it formed pretty much the entire superstructure of our robot http://www.trobotics.ca/#MAXX%203
So we're big fans of wood. In fact we were seriously considering a wooden chassis for last year, untill we realized that we could build an aluminum frame using the KOP parts quicker, cheaper and lighter. But then again... we have access to a full metal shop, including a TIG welder, as well as students who know how to run the mill and TIG. If we had only handsaws and drills, this design might be an ideal solution. At the very least it is a cool design exercise to see how "minimalist" one can get.
Jason
12-09-2008 01:33 AM
Baltic Birch is good stuff, same for Maple. We build longboards out of both. If it's strong enough to support me standing on a 3/4inch plank of the stuff while going down a hill at 50+mph (no exaggeration) without breaking or cracking, or even flexing too much, then it should be plenty strong for FRC.
12-10-2008 11:29 AM
Madison
|
Well I wouldn't recommend it yet... I would hope that others could offer some criticism and improvements.
![]() Starting at the transmissions, we have two AM toughboxes with the extended output shaft option. The face of the transmission is attached directly to the wooden framerail. On the output shaft, there is a spacer, then a sprocket (12 tooth AM), and then a 5" Banebots wheel. These are held on with a cotter pin and a washer. The other axle assemblies are similar, with the sprockets and wheels held onto the 1/2" keyed axles by washers and cotter pins. At the moment, I have the flanged bearings sitting right in a 1.125" hole in the hardwood, but this part that worries me the most at the moment. (maybe an aluminum insert?) That's where I have it at the moment, if you see any problems please point them out. |
12-10-2008 11:55 AM
MrForbes
The problem of determining the life of the bearing seated in the wood is an interesting one. The stress on the wood is only a few hundred psi, and there should not be too much motion between the bearing and the wood if the bearing is doing it's job. The fit of the bearing into the wood is also interesting, it would be nice to have an interference fit, but it would probably be OK to have a slightly loose fit. I did a quick experiment yesterday, I looked around in my home shop and found a 1-1/8" hole saw, and cut a hole in a piece of 1x6 red oak. I went to the hardware store and bought a couple cheap bearings, and put them in the hole, and put a 1/2" bolt through the bearings. There seems to be a couple thousandths of an inch clearance between the bearings and the wood hole. Playing with it, it seems to be pretty darn durable. I guess it would need to be turned into a robot and tested by students for a few days to get a better idea of how it would last, though.

12-12-2008 05:11 PM
MrForbes
We picked up a red oak 1x4 and a Forstner bit at Lowe's today, and did some more playing around in the shop. The cheap bearings are a nice press fit in the hole drilled with the Forstner bit. Sure feels solid! although I need to do something about the dull blade in my miter saw.

12-12-2008 05:20 PM
AdamHeard
|
We picked up a red oak 1x4 and a Forstner bit at Lowe's today, and did some more playing around in the shop. The cheap bearings are a nice press fit in the hole drilled with the Forstner bit. Sure feels solid! although I need to do something about the dull blade in my miter saw.
![]() |
12-21-2008 12:11 PM
Dad1279I think I would try bronze sleeves/bushings instead of those bearings. Strong, simple, and a larger contact area with the wood.
12-21-2008 12:17 PM
sdcantrell56Bronze bushings also have greater friction resulting in greater losses in efficiency. I'm not sure that the drivetrain with relatively high rpms would be the place to introduce extra friction.
12-21-2008 12:55 PM
MrForbes
I like the idea of bronze bushings. While they do have more friction than ball bearings, the friction is still not very much. And the added benefit of increased bearing surface on the wood is a plus.
We have also thought about making this live axle design with plywood, which is softer than oak. One problem with any non-laminated wood is that the tensile strength across the grain is rather low, so the wood can split, which would be catastrophic. Plywood doesn't have this problem as the grain goes in different directions.
12-21-2008 01:25 PM
Alex Cormier
|
I like the idea of bronze bushings. While they do have more friction than ball bearings, the friction is still not very much. And the added benefit of increased bearing surface on the wood is a plus.
We have also thought about making this live axle design with plywood, which is softer than oak. One problem with any non-laminated wood is that the tensile strength across the grain is rather low, so the wood can split, which would be catastrophic. Plywood doesn't have this problem as the grain goes in different directions. |
12-21-2008 02:08 PM
Dad1279Plane the wood to 1/2" thick, Drill lighting holes, and laminate one side with 1/4" hardwood plywood?
I like where this is going.....
Wood wheels also?
We used PVC wheels a few years, the stuff used for exterior wood replacement. Worked well (won regional both years) Easy to make, drilled a hole in the middle, cut round on a bandsaw, pressed in bronze bushings, and bolted sprocket to the side (dead axle)
Bronze bushings in our wheels made it through 2 regionals, nationals, 3-4 off season competitions, and is currently a test bed. Still on the same bushings.
12-21-2008 02:56 PM
sdcantrell562 years ago we also used bronze bushings in a 6wd layout with both sides of the shaft supported. They worked through 2 regionals and national playing extremely tough defense. They were very cheap and they worked relatively well. However, if you are interested in maximizing performance bearins are definitely the answer. Also if you are using aluminum shaft, bronze bushings will not work well and you should use some form of a plastic bushing. Finally Bushings tend to bind with a side load such as in a cantilevered driveshaft.
12-21-2008 03:39 PM
Rick TYler|
Plane the wood to 1/2" thick, Drill lighting holes, and laminate one side with 1/4" hardwood plywood?
|
12-21-2008 05:32 PM
Enigma's puzzleI don't like putting bearings in the wood personally, wood warps and cracks, when you put only a single bearing in the wood (as in the front and middle shafts), with just about any stress it will tear out your hole. The shaft will then shift off-kilter and throw chains on which ever shaft is loosened. But the bigger problem will be your hole being ruined, you would have to replace the entire side of the frame.
Maybe a 1/4 inch metal plate on the inside and outside with bearings in each. I know it increases the price but i would do it if at all possible because your out for at least a couple of matches if not the rest of the day. A little catastrophe defense.
12-21-2008 07:56 PM
MrForbes
We've been thinking about repairing a wood robot chassis if it has problems where the wheels mount, or where bearings enter it. I think you could probably make a resonable repair with thin sheet metal on the outside to restore a bearing hole, or slightly thicker metal (perhaps 1/8" x 2" steel strap) to repair a broken area where a cantilevered dead axle mounts. Or you could mount dead axle on a piece of metal that extends below the robot, and is screwed to the outside of the frame rail.
12-22-2008 12:10 PM
Ivan HelmrichOne way to keep holes through the wood from deforming is to soak the interior of the hole with thin CA (Cyano Acrylate) adhesive. It will wick into the surrounding fibers and make the area very hard and distributes the stresses to a larger area. I've done this for 1/4" dia. holes with good success, I wouldn't hesitate to do this with a larger hole though.
This also works well for holes that are threaded into wood. Drill the hole, form the thread and saturate with CA. Let the adhesive cure fully and re-tap the hole. This is especially helpful where the hole is in the edge of plywood as it helps bond the plies together.
The CA makes some nasty fumes so do this with ventilation and don't soak too large an area at one time, it's exothermic. You will already have your safety glasses on, slip on some rubber gloves as well. It's easy to glue yourself to the part you are working on.
12-22-2008 02:16 PM
EricH
|
The CA makes some nasty fumes so do this with ventilation and don't soak too large an area at one time, it's exothermic. You will already have your safety glasses on, slip on some rubber gloves as well. It's easy to glue yourself to the part you are working on.
|
12-23-2008 12:44 PM
Rick TYlerAnother boat-builder trick for boring holes in wood: drill the hole oversized, and fill it with epoxy with some filler like wood flour (don't use microballoons -- they are too weak) or silica. You can put a 3"x3" patch of fiberglass cloth, not matt, on both sides if you want a little extra strength. Drill your hole right through the middle of the epoxy plug, and stick your fastener through with generous washers on both sides. This is generally done to avoid exposing end-grain to water in the hole, but it also produces a strong way to avoid crushing wood fibers.
I've had bad luck with CA as an adhesive on wood, but using it to saturate end-grain is an interesting idea. Thanks.
12-23-2008 02:50 PM
MrForbes
We visited a friend who's into RC planes this morning, he suggested smearing some baking soda on the wood, then adding some thin CA, and beware of fumes. I guess we'll have to get some CA adhesive and make it part of our experiments.
12-23-2008 10:04 PM
Ivan HelmrichOK, I guess I have to confess, I learned the CA trick while building RC planes. The baking soda works much like "kicker" for the CA, accelerating the cure. This may or may not be a good thing in this case. It may cause the adhesive to cure too fast, not allowing it to wick as far into the wood. I think you are right, some experimentation may be in order.
Rick, I like epoxy for this also, but the 1 to 1 mixes found at the hardware store are too thick in my opinion. A laminating epoxy like West or Pro-set are better choices. This also takes a lot longer to cure and the protective gloves warning still stands.
I like this thread, lots of good techniques for extending the utility of an inexpensive, easy to use material.
12-23-2008 10:08 PM
gorrilla|
OK, I guess I have to confess, I learned the CA trick while building RC planes. The baking soda works much like "kicker" for the CA, accelerating the cure. This may or may not be a good thing in this case. It may cause the adhesive to cure too fast, not allowing it to wick as far into the wood. I think you are right, some experimentation may be in order.
Rick, I like epoxy for this also, but the 1 to 1 mixes found at the hardware store are too thick in my opinion. A laminating epoxy like West or Pro-set are better choices. This also takes a lot longer to cure and the protective gloves warning still stands. I like this thread, lots of good techniques for extending the utility of an inexpensive, easy to use material. |
12-27-2008 04:58 PM
Dan2081My team is making a similar prototype with six wheels, except we have the middle wheels powered instead of the rear. I think that this this rear drive is a better design but some people on my team don't think so. Can anyone give me any reasons why one would be better than the other (possibly someone to quote) so that I can convince my team?
thanks
12-27-2008 08:34 PM
Fe_WillI wonder if section 4.6 of the manual also applies just to the crate or everything being shipped?
http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...nt.aspx?id=452
12-27-2008 09:14 PM
s_forbes|
I wonder if section 4.6 of the manual also applies just to the crate or everything being shipped?
http://www.usfirst.org/community/frc...nt.aspx?id=452 |
|
Originally Posted by 4.6.1
The following regulation applies to any team planning to ship its robot into the U.S. from another country. Teams that do not comply risk having their robots detained at the U.S. border by U.S. Customs and not arriving at the event on time.
The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has adopted international guidelines to decrease the potential for the introduction of certain plant pests that may accompany wood materials arriving from other countries. The crate construction and pallet guidelines stipulate that wood packing materials be either heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with applicable rules. These wood materials must have the approved international mark certifying treatment. |
|
My team is making a similar prototype with six wheels, except we have the middle wheels powered instead of the rear. I think that this this rear drive is a better design but some people on my team don't think so. Can anyone give me any reasons why one would be better than the other (possibly someone to quote) so that I can convince my team?
thanks |