|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
From cad to a working prototype.
15-11-2011 07:25
sgrecoThat is one sweet looking frame.
Want to give us some specs?
15-11-2011 08:04
kajeevanThe cad and specs are both in this link.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36993
15-11-2011 23:24
Hawiian CadderWe completed a prototype this fall geared similarly to this, I completely see why you chose a faster speed, with a reasonable amount of practice it is very controllable and highly useful.
15-11-2011 23:31
|
We completed a prototype this fall geared similarly to this, I completely see why you chose a faster speed, with a reasonable amount of practice it is very controllable and highly useful.
|
15-11-2011 23:41
Chris is me16 FPS single speed sounds brutal. Not enough room for error there... A 12 feet per second skid might have that.
Did you not account for frictional losses? If you didn't, then your drive is very similar to 1503's this year.
16-11-2011 00:40
kajeevanOff the gearbox I'm running 32:38 for a total ratio of about 5.55:1. The wheel well layout is inspired by 1503 but instead of 35 chain I went 25 and threw in bolt action tensioners to pull the end wheels to take up any slack. Also I decided dead shafts opposed to live. Also I'm not worried about to much speed, we enjoy going fast, plus we have the option to throw in an electronic shifter as we have in past years.
P.S. My mistake it is CIMple not cimplex.
16-11-2011 08:49
Brandon Holley
|
16 FPS single speed sounds brutal. Not enough room for error there... A 12 feet per second skid might have that.
Did you not account for frictional losses? If you didn't, then your drive is very similar to 1503's this year. |
16-11-2011 10:04
JamesCH95|
In high gear this past year, we were moving faster than this (actual speed). It required some pretty sophisticated control software that 254 helped to develop. Once we had this setup, it made driving at that speed much simpler.
I would not recommend trying to drive that fast without some software support. I think a simple 2 stick, or 1 stick drive setup would be quite difficult to handle. However, every driver is different, so YMMV. -Brando |
16-11-2011 13:51
Brandon Holley
|
Care to elaborate about what it did? Balance wheel speeds using encoder feedback?
|
17-11-2011 11:11
JamesCH95So, if I'm understanding you correctly, turning rate limits were controlled based upon the speed of the robot.
That does seem like it would make the robot easier to control. I also like the idea of a "quick turn" button too. I assume that made the robot to a very fast about-face?
17-11-2011 14:01
Brandon Holley
|
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, turning rate limits were controlled based upon the speed of the robot.
That does seem like it would make the robot easier to control. I also like the idea of a "quick turn" button too. I assume that made the robot to a very fast about-face? |
17-11-2011 14:09
AdamHeard
|
That is correct. As the robot moved faster, the turning became less "sensitive". It essentially allowed the driver to still use coarse controls to maneuver at high speeds.
Quick turn would change the control scheme to allow turning in place. If you held the button down and moved the stick left and right, you essentially created the control scheme you get from moving one stick forward and the other backward in a standard 2 stick setup. -Brando |
17-11-2011 14:23
Brandon Holley
|
Just to clarify, this means turning in place is exclusive to quick-turn, and in all other modes turning is in arcs?
|