|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
6@D chassis idea I had. Any comments/improvements would be appreciated.
Specs:
Wheel are null. I am currently designing a wheel. Until that is done those wheels are the to take up space.
AM SS for the gear boxes.
2 Sidecars just to show they can fit.
The battery would be kept in by a strap the goes over the top.
It weighs a whoping 59 lbs with all the electronics shown.
27-08-2009 11:25
Jared Russell
1) Great job! Thanks for sharing.
2) You could probably eliminate some of those vertical supports and still have sufficient frame rigidity.
3) 59 lbs sounds a little heavy for what is pictured (are you including the battery in this weight?). What kind of material, e.g. wall thickness, is your structural tubing?
27-08-2009 12:27
Akash Rastogi|
1) Great job! Thanks for sharing.
2) You could probably eliminate some of those vertical supports and still have sufficient frame rigidity. 3) 59 lbs sounds a little heavy for what is pictured (are you including the battery in this weight?). What kind of material, e.g. wall thickness, is your structural tubing? |
27-08-2009 12:35
Rion Atkinson
|
2) You could probably eliminate some of those vertical supports and still have sufficient frame rigidity.
3) 59 lbs sounds a little heavy for what is pictured (are you including the battery in this weight?). What kind of material, e.g. wall thickness, is your structural tubing? |
27-08-2009 13:29
Tom LineYou're going for the wide chassis footprint rather than the narrow.
You don't need 6 wheels to rocker a wide chassis - it turns fairly well with 4.
27-08-2009 13:33
sanddragI would definitely keep 1/8" wall for the outside perimeter, and I would question the need for that upper deck. I like the battery box. You may consider flipping the battery around, and putting a mounting tab to hard mount the Anderson Powerpole connector to the box. 
|
You don't need 6 wheels to rocker a wide chassis - it turns fairly well with 4.
|
27-08-2009 13:54
Rion Atkinson
|
You're going for the wide chassis footprint rather than the narrow.
|
|
I would definitely keep 1/8" wall for the outside perimeter, and I would question the need for that upper deck.
|
27-08-2009 16:36
BrendanBOne suggestion, I wouldn't have the C'rio up against the front in case you get a hard it. It happens a lot. I don't think any team wants to have the most expensive piece of there robot be destroyed.
27-08-2009 19:44
Rion Atkinson
(Even if only around .5 lbs...)
27-08-2009 20:58
Akash Rastogi|
One suggestion, I wouldn't have the C'rio up against the front in case you get a hard it. It happens a lot. I don't think any team wants to have the most expensive piece of there robot be destroyed.
|
27-08-2009 22:17
Dillon Carey
|
Nothing really.. I could move it forward, but there is really no need.. Save weight!
(Even if only around .5 lbs...) |
28-08-2009 12:19
TaylorI assume the tabs along the sides are for bumper attachment. Given the limited hand space there, are you thinking cotter pins through bolts to hold them on?
28-08-2009 14:10
kramarczyk|
Actually, many teams mounted their cRIO that way and even perpendicular to the ground. Even without zipties, I don't think any team had loose modules or a broken cRIO. It can take impacts pretty well.
|
|
I assume the tabs along the sides are for bumper attachment. Given the limited hand space there, are you thinking cotter pins through bolts to hold them on?
|
28-08-2009 16:49
AndyB
|
Yeah, the cRio has been known to take a beating.
http://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-6176 |
28-08-2009 16:56
BrendanB
28-08-2009 17:10
Rion Atkinson
|
Ok, i was thinking you were trying to plan ahead for some sort of pick up system.
|
|
I assume the tabs along the sides are for bumper attachment. Given the limited hand space there, are you thinking cotter pins through bolts to hold them on?
|
28-08-2009 17:19
Rion Atkinson
|
You'd be safe using 50 lb/ft^3 density for your wood panel. Aluminum is about 3 times that (I just looked up the densities for for particle board and 6061 aluminum for these numbers). http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wo...sity-d_40.html has a list of densities for various types of wood.
|
28-08-2009 21:19
EricH
|
The only problem is wood is not an option to choose from.. And I don't if you can manually change the density in Inventor...
|
28-08-2009 23:20
MrForbes
Somehow we modeled ours in Inventor last winter...huh....
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=71902
29-08-2009 13:19
Rion Atkinson
|
And if wood isn't an option, then I just lost respect for Inventor. You go into the properties, and pick your type of wood--pine or oak should do the trick. (It doesn't have "wood" as an option because every wood is a different type of wood, and has a different density.)
|
29-08-2009 14:15
Akash Rastogi|
I went through all materials. Not a single type of wood. In the 2009 Inventor There was. They were listed as "Wood (Pine)" or "Wood(Oak)". But when they upgraded to 2010 they must have take it out...
It is possible to just change the texture (As I did). But odds are you made it in 2009. |
29-08-2009 15:34
GUII don't remember exactly where it is, but in the iProperties of a part you can change the density to a custom value.
29-08-2009 16:39
Rion Atkinson
|
Are there certain add-ins that you don't have enabled? I don't use Inventor but just a suggestion.
|
|
I don't remember exactly where it is, but in the iProperties of a part you can change the density to a custom value.
|
29-08-2009 17:08
MrForbes
You definitely want to be using a wood friendly modeling program. Wood is where it's at.
29-08-2009 17:13
Rion Atkinson
Maybe I'll switch back to Inventor 2009 until I can get solidworks somehow....
29-08-2009 19:25
R.C.
|
Maybe I'll switch back to Inventor 2009 until I can get solidworks somehow....
|