22-04-2010 14:53

AdamHeard

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

You really should post your interface with the frame, that has a much bigger effect on performance than what is shown here.

Also, those aren't snap rings and probably won't hold.

22-04-2010 15:01

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

What you want are snap rings or E-rings.
We like snap rings. http://www.mcmaster.com/param/images...a189-120px.gif

22-04-2010 15:22

Jamie Kalb

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

Yeah. E-rings are quicker to install and don't require a special tool, but snaprings are more secure.

Otherwise, this looks great! Very compact and light. Is there now a belt sprocket reduction inside the module like JesseK suggested?

22-04-2010 15:27

Triple B

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

me's likum 10-32s and washas
mike d

22-04-2010 16:56

JesseK

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

I'd recommend you just get rid of snap rings altogether if you have access to a lathe. Lathe out and tap the ends of each shaft for a #10-32 or #8-32 bolt and use a thread locker. We did that for the first time this year on a couple of rods for the kicker and not only were they very robust they also look pretty sharp.

22-04-2010 17:15

Chris is me

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

Would that work with both axles being live?

22-04-2010 17:16

AdamHeard

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

You would need a lathe to make snap ring grooves, and it's really not difficult at all (several of my students can whip they out real fast).

Snap rings are lighter, quicker to change (one of my kids is a ninja with snap ring pliers, can change a wheel out in like 12 seconds total), and require less machine time than tapping the ends.

And for anything that rotates, I've found end tapping has a tendency to back out, even with threadlocker. It may take a long time to, but it's just a risk you don't need to take.

It would work, but is less secure than snap rings.

22-04-2010 17:57

steelerborn

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

Wow a lot of questions to answer.
Okay this is actually about 3 days old now.
and I fixed a lot of the concerns after doing a little more research on swerves as well as watching the robonauts conference.
Now the clips are gone. And replaced with bolts on the ends using a lathe on the shaft.
Also thrust bearings were modified to fit with the base.
The wheel is connecfted with the belt sprocket so the bottom axel is dead.

I will post the new one now that the version 2.0 is up.
I will also show how it connects with the base.

Thanks I really appreciate you guys helping me out with this.

22-04-2010 18:38

apalrd

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

If the axle is dead, you could use a steel pipe instead of a solid shaft. Then, you could tap the ends and put a bolt in. We use this method on all of our dead-shaft drivetrain applications, in either 3/8" or 1/2", depending on the stresses. Most years we use all 3/8", except this year we used 1/2" on some of the wheels to handle the bump better. This is very similar to the method above, except you wouldn't need to lathe the end out of the shaft

22-04-2010 18:41

steelerborn

Re: pic: 1671 swerve module 2.0

Thanks for the tip. That is a quick cad fix.