|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Messing around some more. This uses VexPro parts for all of the power transmission -- Ball Shifter, 4" Traction Wheels and Tires, Sprockets, Versahubs, etc.
Sheet metal is all .060" with chamfered ends for added ground clearance.
You can't really see it in this image, but the end wheelsets are on sliding brackets for chain tensioning.
10-12-2012 01:00
Andrew ZellerEDIT: Nevermind I realized you are not direct driving. If you have the answers though feel free to reply.
Looks really slick. Simple and will get the job done. One question I have as I am also looking into using the vexpro components on our drivetrain:
For the wheel that is direct driven from the gearbox, did you place the inner of the two Hex VersaHub towards the center of the robot from the inward-most sprocket?
The reason I am asking is that I was thinking about the alignment of the sprockets since in a setup like this only directly driven wheel needs the two Hex VersaHubs while the other two need the bearings which do not add to the "stack" of the VersaHubs and Sprockets.
Maybe a render of the direct-driven wheel would be easiest to understand. Also are you planning on machining the output hex shaft to a certain length to fit your design?
10-12-2012 01:05
Madison
|
Looks really slick. Simple and will get the job done. One question I have as I am also looking into using the vexpro components on our drivetrain:
For the wheel that is direct driven from the gearbox, did you place the inner of the two Hex VersaHub towards the center of the robot from the inward-most sprocket? The reason I am asking is that I was thinking about the alignment of the sprockets since in a setup like this only directly driven wheel needs the two Hex VersaHubs while the other two need the bearings which do not add to the "stack" of the VersaHubs and Sprockets. Maybe a render of the direct-driven wheel would be easiest to understand. Also are you planning on machining the output hex shaft to a certain length to fit your design? |
10-12-2012 01:07
JVN
10-12-2012 01:12
Madison
|
I like this design a lot. We had a lot of discussions about how to mount the ball shifter into a drivetrain. This design is very similar to something I sketched on the whiteboard.
![]() Face mount the 2-stage, then add another reduction via spur gear (my preference) or chain to one wheel. -John |
10-12-2012 01:17
ttldominationSuper snazzy.
For someone of us that haven't had a chance to take these parts for a spin in Inventor, what's the output shaft length on those gearboxes? What's the distance between those railings?
And, just for general sheet metal design is "safe" (for lack of a better word) to use dead axle bolts directly like that on a sheet so thin?
- Sunny G.
10-12-2012 01:21
rcmolloy
Madison,
I'm with everyone else as well on the design. It looks really awesome from an astethic perspective. Utilizing the extra sheet for mounting is what pops out for me. If you guys run an iteration of this guy in season you guys should definitely give us information on how it held up. 
10-12-2012 01:25
Andrew Zeller|
The ratios available on the ball shifter don't really work to my liking for directly driving 4" wheels.
|
10-12-2012 01:42
AllenGregoryIV
Great concept, I've spent a little time with the VEXpro CAD files myself and one my favorite parts is how much ease of maintenance was included in the design. It looks like the rear wheel would block the awesome access holes that VEX designed into the gearboxes for removing the CIMs. That is one of the reasons their mounting bracket has the cutout in the middle.
Also what chain reduction did you use in the design? I've been playing around with a couple and haven't really made a decision yet.
10-12-2012 01:51
ttldomination|
When using JVN's design calculator, I found the low gear to be 9.3 ft/sec and high gear to be 21.2 ft/sec.
|
10-12-2012 02:19
MichaelBick
|
21 fps...overkill's definition.
And low gear isn't necessarily about speed as it is about pushing power. Going to 3-4 FPS means nothing if you spin out your wheels in a pushing match. - Sunny G. |
10-12-2012 03:51
Cory
|
When using JVN's design calculator, I found the low gear to be 9.3 ft/sec and high gear to be 21.2 ft/sec
What speed are you aiming for with the low gear? 6 or 7 ft/sec? Would 9.3 be considered an acceptable low gear speed? |
10-12-2012 08:28
Andrew RemmersIts about time for me to crack out the old CAD machine again 
Love the design.
- Andrew
10-12-2012 10:51
apalrd
|
all speeds are not created equal. 21 FPS on 2 motors is probably slower than 13 or 14 FPS (You could do some quick math to figure this out).
Your acceleration would be SUPER sluggish. |
10-12-2012 14:06
Madison
|
Super snazzy.
For someone of us that haven't had a chance to take these parts for a spin in Inventor, what's the output shaft length on those gearboxes? What's the distance between those railings? And, just for general sheet metal design is "safe" (for lack of a better word) to use dead axle bolts directly like that on a sheet so thin? - Sunny G. |
|
Great concept, I've spent a little time with the VEXpro CAD files myself and one my favorite parts is how much ease of maintenance was included in the design. It looks like the rear wheel would block the awesome access holes that VEX designed into the gearboxes for removing the CIMs. That is one of the reasons their mounting bracket has the cutout in the middle.
Also what chain reduction did you use in the design? I've been playing around with a couple and haven't really made a decision yet. |
10-12-2012 16:18
ttldomination|
I have a section-view at home, but there's some build up around the axle slots to distribute the loading over a larger area and to deal with side-loading on the tensioning system. This is using a sheet-metal variant of the sliding bearing block tensioning method.
|
10-12-2012 17:30
Andrew Zeller|
Quick spreadsheet:
2x CIM motors, 150lbs, 100% weight on driven wheels, 0.9 speed loss const 12.5v initial battery voltage, 0.03 ohm battery resistance Gear ratio resulting in 21.33fps after speed loss: 2.07sec to 20ft 3.18sec to 40ft 1.27sec to 12fps 0.54sec to <160amp total current 3.23sec to 11v battery (battery remains under 11v for 3.23sec) Gear ratio resulting in 13.29fps after speed loss: 2.00sec to 20ft 3.40sec to 40ft 1.17sec to 12fps 0.18sec to <160amp total current 1.20sec to 11v battery Looking at the curves, most of the output distance curves for the two gears are relatively close, the velocity is worse than 13.29fps until ~1.5sec, and the higher gear will be under ~1.5x motor load and significantly lower battery voltage the entire time. Edit: When you choose a high gear ratio, you don't usually actually care about top speed. You really want to gear for either sprint-distance or time to speed, with the speed and distance adjusted based on game-specific strategy. Being tied to a specific ratio spread will also pull your high gear slightly based on where your low gear wants to be. You usually want low gear to be traction limited, at a current which is determined by your strategy (how much you want to push). |
10-12-2012 17:46
billbo911|
The chain reduction is 1:2 right now; 16 tooth hex sprocket to 32 tooth sprocket bolted to a versahub..........
|
10-12-2012 18:01
apalrd
|
Thanks for the explanation. I was obviously oversimplifying the idea of robot speed and I missed the relationship between gear ratio and motor load on the CIM motors. Better to learn now. So from your numbers I can conclude that the gear ratio resulting in 21.3 fps has very similar acceleration to a gear ratio resulting in 13 fps while the higher top speed causes voltage to drop quicker.
Is there a specific equation you are using to relate output speed of CIMs to current draw or voltage drop? Would you be able to PM me the spreadsheet you made? Thanks for the help. |
17-12-2012 14:19
Madison
Here's an okay look at what I roughed in for chain tensioning on the end wheel sets.

The white parts on the right side are part of the tensioning system. One is a U-shaped bracket that straddles the wheel and captures the axle in two places. The axle continues through that part and into the blue frame pieces where it can slide in a slot. The black pieces are acetal disks that act as spacers and as thrust washers and should help to spread side-loading out over a larger area than a typical washer or the bolt head.
The bracket also has a captive nut installed. Threading a bolt into that nut will pull on the wheel and tension the chain. The second, right-most white part is the fixed plate the bolt pulls against; it could just as easily use the blue, outer drive train cross member, but I wanted to avoid having the bolt head stick out into where the bumpers will sit and it also makes it possible to assemble each side of the drivetrain as a 'pod' without putting together the entire frame first.
17-12-2012 18:55
Andrew ZellerI like that tensioning design. May borrow it for our drivetrain this year.
What is the size of the bolt you are using to tension?
17-12-2012 18:59
Madison
|
I like that tensioning design. May borrow it for our drivetrain this year.
What is the size of the bolt you are using to tension? |
17-12-2012 19:43
Jay Trzaskos
what clearance have you left so that the bolt will not interfere with the wheel as you continue to tension it? I'm guessing that the bolt is mounted below the axle plane, giving it increased clearance?
17-12-2012 19:52
Madison
|
what clearance have you left so that the bolt will not interfere with the wheel as you continue to tension it? I'm guessing that the bolt is mounted below the axle plane, giving it increased clearance?
|
18-12-2012 12:20
roystur44Madison,
Consider flipping the u bracket the other way and pushing the bracket to create tension. Brings your wheel out further on the frame and exposes more of the wheel for climbing ramps. Plus you won't have the screw sticking out into the thread.
18-12-2012 13:24
Alan Anderson
|
Consider flipping the u bracket the other way and pushing the bracket to create tension.
|