|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
I hopped on the sheetmetal bandwagon after the 2415, 148/217, and 1902 debuts. Thanks JVN and James Tonthat for the sheetmetal learning process help.
Questions comment concerns are welcome as always.
01-05-2010 13:32
RMS11Looks really cool! A few questions:
Why did you decide to do 4 gearboxes instead of 2, as 2 would probably save weight.
I cant tell from the pic, but how are those crossbeams attached? Are they made of bent aluminum? Was there a structural reason to put the front cross beam at an angle?
Also, what was the weight as it?
Again, looks great!
01-05-2010 13:46
Chris is meMore importantly, when's this showing up on Shaker's doorstep? We need it before July...
Oh, it's a render. Silly me. 
01-05-2010 13:48
Jstack14Seems very complex considering how simple it could be...BUT...it looks awesome and 4 toughboxs with 4 cims is very powerful! If only i could have that drive i would enjoy playing with it.
01-05-2010 14:43
Akash Rastogi|
Seems very complex considering how simple it could be...BUT...it looks awesome and 4 toughboxs with 4 cims is very powerful! If only i could have that drive i would enjoy playing with it.
|
01-05-2010 17:07
sanddragIf you have a sponsor shop where all they do is make this kind of stuff all day, and you have the proficiency to design this kind of stuff well (I do not), then this is REALLY the way to build an FRC robot in a short amount of time. It is so fast and easy to burn (or jet) all this out because the actual amount of material removed is so small, compared to milling. The amount of time saved over milling and welding more solid-type parts can be tremendous.
01-05-2010 17:52
Akash RastogiI'm thinking that with 4" wheels I can rework the geometry a little and place the CIMs inside the modules and save some space while still keeping it direct drive.
http://s656.photobucket.com/albums/u...l_Assembly.jpg
The blue and white are 2791 colors.
01-05-2010 18:25
s_forbesOne thing I would be worried about with this design: It looks like the crossmembers are only attached on their ends. Being c-channels, you would probably see a lot of flex in the whole chassis. It would likely survive through competition, but I would be hesitant to use it.
Since you are designing it with sheet metal, you have the unique ability to make very large structural members that are still very light. Monocoque style construction is something that can be employed fairly easily and will result in a very stiff, very strong chassis.
01-05-2010 18:40
Dave McLaughlinI know that 233 had a similar drive set up as you do hear this year, but ended up chaining the two gearboxes on each side together. I'm not sure exactly, but I think it was due to torque problems when the front 4 wheels lifted off the ground when crossing the bump. Just something to consider.
01-05-2010 18:48
O'SancheskiWhat program did you use?
Can I have the CAD files... I would love to show this to my team... Looks really nice btw...
01-05-2010 19:44
Tom LineSheet metal chassis like look HUGE, but in reality are a lot of empty space. I've really appreciated the look of the 217 / 148 / 1114 robots the last couple of years - they simply look physically imposing because of the lack of open space: they look massive.
One question though on this type of constructive. I imagine one of the trickiest parts of making a sheet-metal frame of this sort is doing the force modeling to understand where you can and cannot remove material.
How are you going about that?
01-05-2010 20:24
Akash Rastogi|
Sheet metal chassis like look HUGE, but in reality are a lot of empty space. I've really appreciated the look of the 217 / 148 / 1114 robots the last couple of years - they simply look physically imposing because of the lack of open space: they look massive.
One question though on this type of constructive. I imagine one of the trickiest parts of making a sheet-metal frame of this sort is doing the force modeling to understand where you can and cannot remove material. How are you going about that? |
01-05-2010 22:14
Akash RastogiOk so I redid a lot of the suggested stuff and restructured the trussing.
http://s656.photobucket.com/albums/u..._sheet_8wd.jpg
http://s656.photobucket.com/albums/u...heet_8wd_2.jpg
http://s656.photobucket.com/albums/u...AssemblyV2.jpg
01-05-2010 22:20
sdcantrell56It seems to me that you could easily cut the height in half and save a bunch of weight that way. Also you need to think about some type of belly pan both to mount electronics and to greatly increase the strength of the whole assembly.
Also the cutout in the middle could be decreased a bunch. It looks to me like the limit to ground clearance will be the area between the middle and outer wheels and not the area between the middle wheels. There no need in having the middle have way more clearance. It just weakens things and makes it more difficult to run chains, plus raises the area where you can mount electronics, thus raising the center of gravity of the whole thing.
01-05-2010 22:31
Akash Rastogi|
It seems to me that you could easily cut the height in half and save a bunch of weight that way. Also you need to think about some type of belly pan both to mount electronics and to greatly increase the strength of the whole assembly.
Also the cutout in the middle could be decreased a bunch. It looks to me like the limit to ground clearance will be the area between the middle and outer wheels and not the area between the middle wheels. There no need in having the middle have way more clearance. It just weakens things and makes it more difficult to run chains, plus raises the area where you can mount electronics, thus raising the center of gravity of the whole thing. |
01-05-2010 23:03
BrendanB2791 is going to be VERY interesting next year with Akash and Chris mentoring the same team and passing on the knowledge they both have! Beautiful CAD. Which reminds me, I need to finish my wheels and frame!
02-05-2010 15:38
Akash Rastogi|
I know that 233 had a similar drive set up as you do hear this year, but ended up chaining the two gearboxes on each side together. I'm not sure exactly, but I think it was due to torque problems when the front 4 wheels lifted off the ground when crossing the bump. Just something to consider.
|
|
What program did you use?
Can I have the CAD files... I would love to show this to my team... Looks really nice btw... |