|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Some Cad practice I did A while ago on designing a "west coast drive." Obviously I took a Lot of inspiration from team 254. The gearboxes are custom plate but have the same layout as a standard Toughbox for the gears. The frame is 1/16 wall aluminium tubing. Any comments Questions or suggestions?
28-06-2011 21:50
Hawiian Cadder1/16 tubing is maybe a little thin, depending on the challenge and how heavy the robot is. The only teams i have seen using 1/16 tube also had 8 wheels, i don't know if the fact that 8 wheel drives tend to rock less violently had anything to do with it.
I am assuming that those are 4 inch wheels? If so how many stages are in your gearbox and what are the speeds.
looks pretty good. how much does it weigh?
28-06-2011 21:52
Chris is me|
1/16 tubing is maybe a little thin, depending on the challenge and how heavy the robot is. The only teams i have seen using 1/16 tube also had 8 wheels, i don't know if the fact that 8 wheel drives tend to rock less violently had anything to do with it.
|
28-06-2011 22:01
Hawiian Cadder
28-06-2011 22:12
Danny BlauIs there any chance that your team is willing to share that info?
Have you thought of correlating it with scouting data you could ready start to draw some powerful conclusions as to what are the most competitive setups.
If you would like any help feel free to let me know.
Danny
28-06-2011 22:29
Hawiian Cadderright now the info is not typed, its in about 100 3 by 5 cards on my cork-board. I am writing a paper about the development of our multiple drive-train frame, I will add this data to that paper. unfortunately we never scout at nationals, so all I have is the mechanical data.
edit: sorry for thread-jack.
28-06-2011 22:43
Danny BlauOne way to get the scouting data would be to use 1114's world database, they compile all the match scores and from that they are able to calculate OPR (Offensive Power Ranking). The nice thing about OPR is that its very impartial and non-bias compared to other scouting methods.
Currently 1114 has all the tabulated data from all of the regionals available (which would be a good place to start) and normally they don't analysis the data from champs but maybe we can work on that!
Thanks for sharing the data
Danny
28-06-2011 22:48
AdamHeard
|
1/16 tubing is maybe a little thin, depending on the challenge and how heavy the robot is. The only teams i have seen using 1/16 tube also had 8 wheels, i don't know if the fact that 8 wheel drives tend to rock less violently had anything to do with it.
I am assuming that those are 4 inch wheels? If so how many stages are in your gearbox and what are the speeds. looks pretty good. how much does it weigh? |
28-06-2011 23:21
Hawiian Cadder|
1/8 wall tubing isn't that much stronger than 1/16, and at a massive weight penalty.
We predominately use 1/16" wall, and haven't suffered any frame failures the past few seasons on any of our robots (including practice and prototypes), and a lot get really beat up. I know you're just trying to help, but it can mislead new people when you make such bold blanket statements with such confidence. Bending is the primary failure mode for frames in FRC, and the bending is directly related to the area moment of inertia. If you do some research on on how this is calculated, you'll see the shape and cross section of the tubing is what grants strength, not the thickness. |
28-06-2011 23:24
42!|
1/16 tubing is maybe a little thin, depending on the challenge and how heavy the robot is. The only teams i have seen using 1/16 tube also had 8 wheels, i don't know if the fact that 8 wheel drives tend to rock less violently had anything to do with it.
I am assuming that those are 4 inch wheels? If so how many stages are in your gearbox and what are the speeds. looks pretty good. how much does it weigh? |
28-06-2011 23:51
AdamHeard
|
Sorry if i have miss-lead anyone, it is not my intention.
as for the failure mode. i would expect that the failure mode for 1/8 inch tube would be bending, however i would expect the failure for 1/16 tube to be bending in or getting crushed. especially if the robot takes a hard hit from the side. i think 1/16 is a LOT easier to parallelogram too. |
29-06-2011 00:10
Hawiian Cadder|
Crushing from impact (and to a lesser extent parallelogramming) are really a result of poor design in this era of mandatory bumpers.
We've never crushed in our 1/16" wall with some brutal impacts while using bumpers. Without bumpers, the exposed corners often get smashed badly, but just the corner and it's purely a cosmetic issue. If we ran without bumpers, we'd beef it up. However, we know we're using bumpers and take advantage of it. |
29-06-2011 00:38
42!|
I was thinking more about the bearing for the middle wheel and gearbox.
if you are using flange bearings (which you have to with walls that thing) and take a hard side hit, have you ever had problems with the flange punching into the tube wall? adding a bearing block, with holes rather than slots, could help to minimize the risk of this happening. |
29-06-2011 01:05
Chris is meCan we not make claims about robot strength or material thickness based purely on guesswork please? Seriously, if you have no experience with the material, there's no shame in just not posting.
29-06-2011 01:10
AdamHeard
|
Can we not make claims about robot strength or material thickness based purely on guesswork please? Seriously, if you have no experience with the material, there's no shame in just not posting.
|
29-06-2011 01:24
Hawiian Cadder|
He's got a valid point, it just took him a few posts to get around to it.
Yes, we avoid 1/16" wall on our rails for drive that have bearing blocks, etc... We're pretty sure it'd work, but for a base that's already around 30 lbs with motors, we take the few extra pounds that just two rails of 1/8" represent. |
|
Can we not make claims about robot strength or material thickness based purely on guesswork please? Seriously, if you have no experience with the material, there's no shame in just not posting.
|