13-01-2009 00:23

Hanna2325

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Nice!!

is the wooden plank considered outside chassis

13-01-2009 00:25

Danny McC

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

I love our robot and all but the thing that sticks out the most to me in this picture is the tipped over stool. Why is it tipped over?

13-01-2009 00:35

thefro526

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

haha Thanks!!!=D The wooden plank was just a quick way for us to mount a battery because I wanted to drive before the night was over. We decided that one bolt, 2 clamps and a bunch of zip-ties was ok to hold our battery on for that session.... We were amazed that it stayed on

You know how the shop is....

13-01-2009 09:34

MattB703

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

I don't mean to pick knits, but can we use kitbot frames from the previous years? Are they still available as COTS parts?

13-01-2009 09:37

Greg Needel

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

if you are concerned I would ask the Q&A but since it is still a commercially available product I would say yes it meets COTS requirements. http://www.ifirobotics.com/kitbot.shtml


just FYI the above picture is of the new andymark chassis in the "wide body" setup.

13-01-2009 09:39

smurfgirl

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

There is a thread which directly answers this question: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...e+COTS+le gal

13-01-2009 09:46

MattB703

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Thanks, I didn't realize they were still for sale. That clears it up.

13-01-2009 11:26

AustinDpOwers89

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

doesn't your front end violate the bumper rules?

<R08>
A. BUMPERS must be built in segments, with a minimum length of six inches, and a maximum length that does not exceed the maximum horizontal dimension of the ROBOT

L. The BUMPERS must be fixed to the BUMPER PERIMETER.

M. The entire length of the BUMPER backing must be supported by the structure/frame of the ROBOT (i.e. the backing material must not be in “free space” between or beyond attachment points) (see Figure 8 – 3).

13-01-2009 11:42

Jared Russell

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

I think it does violate the bumper rules. Which is ridiculous. The GDC needs to clear up the intent of their bumper rules ASAP. Your team, and mine, and dozens of others, have frames that may or may not be illegal, and all we can do is sit and wait for the GDC to make their ruling.

13-01-2009 11:53

wilsonmw04

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

I don't see this frame as violating the rules as long as the end caps are 6" long. Why would you think that it was illegal?
FYI: Check team update 2. They have answered many bumper questions with this update.

13-01-2009 12:01

Jared Russell

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

It all depends on whether the front ends of their frame are at least 6" wide, so I was a bit hasty to call it illegal. It's hard to say based on the photo. As long as they are, you are right, they are legal.

13-01-2009 12:07

Vikesrock

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

The front ends of the "wheel modules" of the kit chassis are 6.25 inches wide when constructed as as shown according to my CAD model of a VERY similar chassis we are going to start constructing today.

13-01-2009 12:11

AustinDpOwers89

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

well if they're 6.25'' then yeah, they're fine. i was just expressing my concern incase they weren't and if 816 wasn't entirely aware of the crappy new bumper rules.

13-01-2009 13:39

thefro526

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Thanks for the concern on the bumper rules. The front sections are slightly more than 6 inches wide which will allow up to run a legal bumper on either side.

Btw, for anyone building a wide base from the kitbot chassis this year, we found that if you build it per AndyMark's instruction you'll have and ugly open corner on one end. We fixed this by cutting one side rail 1 inch longer than the others.

13-01-2009 13:55

Vikesrock

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Are the chain runs shown in the picture temporary or are you just using the extra drive sprockets as temporary spacers?

Or I suppose they could be for attaching some unknown mechanism to the drive transmissions.

13-01-2009 14:45

craigboez

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

We are building a very similar chassis for prototyping. Just curious, did you test this 6WD configuration against a 4WD configuration (like the one in the picture, but without the middle wheels)? We're planning to, just wondering if there are any substantial advantages to either design.

Comments?

13-01-2009 18:35

Danny McC

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Nope we went straight to the 6WD as far as I know. Unless they did it when I wasnt there which isn't much.

13-01-2009 20:48

thefro526

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Originally I designed it so that the front chain went all the way back to the transmission. Then after we started putting the chains on we noticed that we didn't really need it so we shortened the chain up. The only reason the sprocket was still on the was because we didn't get a chance to make a spacer yet.

I don't think it would be substantially different aside from the fact that your distributing your weight over 6 points instead of 4 which can cause the robot to maneuver differently. I have a personal preference towards 6 wheel drives and that's kinda why we went in this direction. You should be fine with a 4 wheel drive with similar geometry and then if you wanted to you could always add a 5th and 6th wheel

13-01-2009 21:02

cardinalman86

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

First of all, i like the zip-tied battery But this is pretty awesome. We've got a four wheel base with the same orientation. I was just wondering how the one cim was goin for you with six wheels. Last time we drove with six wheels, it was easier to use two cims and we were able to maneuver better.

13-01-2009 21:09

thefro526

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

This year we decided that it didn't offer much of an advantage because with the traction available we're only going to be able to put down about 9lbs of force before the wheels slip. Also because there's less friction against the drive in general and it requires less force to turn we deemed the second motor unnecessary. If we ever needed to we could always bolt a second motor into the tough box without much trouble.

13-01-2009 23:47

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

Looks good Dustin. Can it push MORT around though?

14-01-2009 19:05

amariealbrecht

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

very impressive...

14-01-2009 21:32

meastman

Re: pic: 816's 2009 Drivetrain!

How is the turning on your bot?