|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
6-in wheel with 1.5-in tread. Sidewalls, mounting holes and tread attachment are consistent with AM Performance wheels. Both driven(hex) and free(bearing) weigh about the same at about 1.3 lbs and have almost identical machining save for the center options. Machining for both sides' spokes is repeatable about the origin.
05-05-2010 22:55
Edoc'silAny thoughts on how you would machine that? The angles look a bit tricky, almost like something you would have to mold out of plastic.
05-05-2010 23:00
548swimmer1.3 pounds seems a little heavy. I designed some simple 6inchers without any sprocket mounts that weighed in at around .65 pounds. Also, your exterior wall looks a little thick, how thick is it?
05-05-2010 23:13
M. Mellott|
Any thoughts on how you would machine that? The angles look a bit tricky, almost like something you would have to mold out of plastic.
|
|
1.3 pounds seems a little heavy. I designed some simple 6inchers without any sprocket mounts that weighed in at around .65 pounds. Also, your exterior wall looks a little thick, how thick is it?
|
05-05-2010 23:22
548swimmer|
Looks like you could machine the front face of the 3 closest "spokes" and the back side of the other three in one pass. Flip it over and repeat the process.
The outer wall looks like it's recessed for the tread. Does your weight include the tread material, or is it just the wheel? I like the wider tread. Very nice, Adam! |
05-05-2010 23:23
Jamie KalbPretty neat.
For the "free" wheel, if the hub is wider than the rim, you can attach a flat sprocket directly to the (nicely integrated) bolt pattern on the wheel without an extra spacer. I can't tell from the picture if it's already like that.
06-05-2010 08:39
Borisdamole|
Any thoughts on how you would machine that? The angles look a bit tricky, almost like something you would have to mold out of plastic.
|
06-05-2010 10:23
Edoc'sil|
no way.... it would be machinable, you would just have to do 2 milling operations.... it would require flipping the wheel over to machine the back half.....
the trick with that is getting the orientation correct when you flip it, but it would not be too bad... looks like a fun project for some students on your team to machine! |
06-05-2010 10:52
548swimmer|
It doesn't look like the spokes are flat, but it may just be distortion from the render.
|
06-05-2010 12:20
Edoc'silNot many schools have a 3 axis cnc with all axis computer controlled. maybe he does, but even still the part wouldn't come out like that, there would be a flat spot from where the taper on the spokes trailed off from the machining bit.
06-05-2010 14:32
A_Reed
|
1.3 pounds seems a little heavy. I designed some simple 6inchers without any sprocket mounts that weighed in at around .65 pounds. Also, your exterior wall looks a little thick, how thick is it?
|
|
Any thoughts on how you would machine that? The angles look a bit tricky, almost like something you would have to mold out of plastic.
|
|
It doesn't look like the spokes are flat, but it may just be distortion from the render.
|
|
Pretty neat.
For the "free" wheel, if the hub is wider than the rim, you can attach a flat sprocket directly to the (nicely integrated) bolt pattern on the wheel without an extra spacer. I can't tell from the picture if it's already like that. |
06-05-2010 19:13
Edoc'silOk, what high school a ball milling bit? If anyone responds yes I will apply to be a super senior at your school. To me it just seems that it would be easier to design it a bit simpler so in could be made easily inhouse.
anyhow my 2 cents
06-05-2010 20:52
A_Reed
|
Ok, what high school a ball milling bit? If anyone responds yes I will apply to be a super senior at your school. To me it just seems that it would be easier to design it a bit simpler so in could be made easily inhouse.
anyhow my 2 cents |
06-05-2010 21:30
Dan Richardson
I like the wide tread design, the offset spokes give it a nifty appeal.
|
Ok, what high school a ball milling bit? If anyone responds yes I will apply to be a super senior at your school. To me it just seems that it would be easier to design it a bit simpler so in could be made easily inhouse.
anyhow my 2 cents |
06-05-2010 22:51
548swimmer|
1.3 lbs may seem a bit heavy, but with no realistic numbers to run through the ANSYS FEA I have designed it to be overly robust with a 'standard' .25x.25 square cross section for each spoke. Anyone want to help me out on getting some realistic benchmarks for moment loading, side loads and radial loads.
|
06-05-2010 23:22
Edoc'sil|
You don't need a high end bit to cut aluminum, with the proper feed speeds and such you could use a 'cheap' bit to do the job
|
06-05-2010 23:37
548swimmerI have heard (though never tried) that you can mill on a router table with an all carbide bit. I don't see why something like this wouldn't work here. Obviously a router table won't help, but you can still use the bit.
08-05-2010 21:14
DonRotolo
|
I have heard (though never tried) that you can mill on a router table with an all carbide bit.
|
08-05-2010 21:16
548swimmer|
You must use a template for the router to follow, there's little chance of really controlling it freehand.
|