29-12-2012 15:48

DampRobot

Re: pic: WCD

First, thanks for posting this. I really like the orange and black paint job; we might be doing something similar this year.

I've got a couple of questions about your implementation of the WCP DS. What center drop did you use? Why did you decide to put the gearbox pockets in your bellypan so far in? In the DT I'm working on, with a 3/16" drop, the pancake cylinders will clear the belly pan by a few hundredths. Also, I believe the DS comes fully anodized black, so you might not be able to make the gearbox plates orange.

Finally, if you're doing a waterjetted bellypan, why don't you put the electronics on it? Your slide out electronics board is certainly cool, but having it with the bellypan (where most teams put their electronics) seems redundant. Is the bellypan where you're planning on putting your pneumatic system?

29-12-2012 16:48

Joey Milia

Re: pic: WCD

Just one thing on the DT, I can't see but I just want to make sure you have the bearing blocks really well connected inside the tube. On a prototype last year we just had 3/8 plate on each side with spacers and they would wouldn't always be lined up correctly.

Besides that the drive looks like a run of the mill WCD and I'm sure it'll work if it's made well.

As for the electronics, what's supporting the PD board? It looks like it's just on 1/8 polycarb. You might want to think about supporting it because it looks like it'll bounce around a lot and that might looses up connections.

29-12-2012 17:12

Mk.32

Re: pic: WCD

By the looks of your design I assume it's welded together?
Looks pretty slick, can we get some more photos of the electronics area?

29-12-2012 17:34

MichaelBick

Re: pic: WCD

We work very closely with 1515, so I feel like I can speak a little about this drive. The mortorq electronics system is modular. It's very nice to have, but quite heavy. Basically both Mathew and I have tried to get Mortorq to use a regular electronics(non-modular) bellypan, but so far they have been resistant to the change. This isn't the final iteration actually though.

The bearing blocks(at least on this iteration) should be fine. They are the 973/1323 bearing blocks.

29-12-2012 17:42

msimon785

Re: pic: WCD

We are actually not using this bellypan. It was designed more for the aesthetic of the rendering and would actually be useless because it does not prevent torsion in the frame much at all (because of the typography in the center).

Instead, we are using a waterjet 1/16" ABS bellypan with a few large pockets rather than the conventional diamond pattern.

As to the electronics, 1515's electronics for the past 3 years have utilized c-channel slides and either a reinforced corroplast or polycarbonate. We use WAGO X-comm modular terminal blocks to allow us to easily remove all the electronics in a matter of seconds. Is this level of modularity necessary, or perhaps even desired? No. However, it is a technique that has worked for our team in the past and we do intend to continue modularity in electronics in the future. It is something that our programmers and electrical students both very much appreciate as it allows them to work independently and free of debris.

The bearing blocks are very similar to the 973/1323 ones as Michael said, but with a different bolt pattern.

Please note that while this is a "standard" wcd frame, a much more recent iteration (except for the abs bellypan) is found here.

EDIT: Also, the WCP gearboxes are anodized black and colors in both this rendering and that of our latest revision are simply for the sake of the rendering. (I actually helped with the WCP renderings).

29-12-2012 20:47

DampRobot

Re: pic: WCD

I'm interested to hear this. What was the root of the problem (ie, if stresses caused undesirable misalignment, what was the cause), and what undesirable effect did this cause? Also, could you describe your setup? What changes did you make in your 2012 drive?

I ask because we're contemplating doing something very similar for our 2013 drive. Here's a screenshot of the setup we're thinking of: http://puu.sh/1H1fU. We would have 2 3/8" plates on either side of the tubing, pocketed so they fit over 2x1 tubing. They would be kept parallel by the 4 10-32 button heads running between the plates, the shaft itself, and the tensioning screw in each plate.

29-12-2012 20:57

Joey Milia

Re: pic: WCD

We had two 3/8 plates that fit halfway into pocketed tube and two bolts with spacers holding them together. Tensioning was done with a bolt from the end of the box beam to one of the two spacers. With the chain pulling one way and the tensioner pulling the other, the shaft ended up at a slight angle. It still ran fine and wan't much of a problem but it probably put additional load on the bearings.

For the season we machined one big spacer that pocketed into each plate and partially held the bearing on each side. Because both bearings where in once piece they stayed in line.

29-12-2012 21:40

roystur44

Re: pic: WCD

Do you have to take the transmission apart to change a belt?

29-12-2012 21:45

Mk.32

Re: pic: WCD

Those look like chains. Why 2 sprockets on the ends?

29-12-2012 22:05

MichaelBick

Re: pic: WCD

DampRobot, I reccomend looking at 973's CADs and checking out their bearing blocks. They are super easy to machine and are 1 piece. The side plates can be made simpler if need be(that's what we did last year), but if you have a waterjet sponsor they can do it too.

The WCD is a chain drive. It looks like belt because chain made in solidworks is a solid piece. I'm not sure why the extra sprocket is there and a spacer would probably be in it's place.

29-12-2012 22:28

Garrett.d.w

Re: pic: WCD

Hi, I'll go on a big tangent that will talk a little about why I design with big gearbox pockets.

One thing that we on 2733 learned the hard way with our first WCD was that everything needs to be easily removable. Our bellypan didn't have large enough cutouts in it to accommodate the transmissions when we were trying to get them out. Our second version (used at Bunnybot this year) had cutouts that were as big as we could make them without compromising the rigidity of the frame. It saved weight and friendships .

The basic rule for us: the pockets are cut to measure at least the length of the transmission (tip of shaft to end of the cylinder or motor, depending on the mount) plus one inch.

29-12-2012 22:42

apalrd

Re: pic: WCD

This is a fantastic lesson for all in this thread, not just WCD drivetrains even.

It's usually far easier to service drivetrain components for the bottom instead of the top. Then you can build whatever you want on top without worrying about service. Fully removable gearboxes are also nice because you can work outside of the machine entirely, and you always want to be able to completely replace critical assemblies with spares without possibly forgetting a washer (or bearing .

In fact, with recent drivetrain development, we've heavily prioritized bottom access to key components, especially chassis maintenance points. When game mechanisms get added on top, it's too hard to access many of them from the top.

29-12-2012 23:43

msimon785

Re: pic: WCD

Michael is right, those are "chains". I actually made this one in Inventor though. The second sprocket is, embarrassingly, a case of laziness. Now that I use SolidWorks, however, I use a configuration for the sprockets so that each wheel/bearing block assembly only has the single appropriate sprocket.

Also, in the current revision, the shafts are chamfered at the end as per the WCP Design.

Thank you for the suggestions regarding opening up the bottom. I will make sure to leave clearance pockets for maintenance purposes.

30-12-2012 01:33

DampRobot

Re: pic: WCD

I take your point about the 973 blocks being easy to machine, but I just can't get around the fact that there are 3 pieces that need to be machined instead of 2. I guess my question comes down to this: why do the bearings need to be in one piece, and if they aren't, what happens? Joey's response seemed to be that although this can cause the wheel to be out of alignment, nothing terrible happens.

On the other hand, if two piece (rather than 3 pieces) are hard to keep aligned, and this misalignment will significantly impact performance, a 973 (or 254, for that matter) style bearing blocks are the best option. I just wasn't really aware that this could be a large problem, and want to make sure that we don't make any drivetrain decisions that we'll regret next year.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, I just want to learn a bit more about the ins and outs of WCD bearing blocks, like the ones featured in this design.

30-12-2012 01:45

Mk.32

Re: pic: WCD

Or you could just do GT2 belts, C-C +.003-.006 and not worry about it?

30-12-2012 02:04

Gray Adams

Re: pic: WCD

The advantage of pressing both bearings into the same bore is that they're definitely lined up straight. You don't need them to be perfectly in line, but then you're going to wear out your bearings much more quickly, you're going to sap efficiency, and if its bad enough, the whole thing will seize up. You'll be able to see and feel the improvement of having the bearings in the same bore, but if its just impossible for you to do it that way, it can still work, just not was well

30-12-2012 02:24

sanddrag

Re: pic: WCD

Just to note, 696 has always done two separate bearing blocks machined from 1/4" x 2" flat bar held inline by nothing more than the axle through bearings and 4 bolts and we've never had a problem. Much less machine time and material cost. Although, we may go for the fitted-tubes style next time, just to try it out.

30-12-2012 13:35

the.miler

Re: pic: WCD

Alternatively, you could make your bearing block out of a single piece of 1.25" wide by 2" high at 1/8" thickness tube, available at onlinemetals:

http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant...269&top_cat=60

I know it's 6063 aluminum; our drivetrain was made with the stuff last year, and it was just fine to machine.

Bore your bearing hole and a couple of screw holes, and then lop off the top of your tube to make a C-channel like piece. Slide it onto the robot, tighten down your screws, and you're good. Our team used the system on previous robots before we moved away from the cantilevered drivetrain design; while I cannot personally attest to its effectiveness, as it was before my time, our mentors recall the solution as doing a fantastic job. Since we intend to return to cantilevered drive this year, we have of course revamped the design; a screenshot is here:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...06823682841202

All the advantages of imbedding your bearings in a single piece, without having to make three different bearing block pieces. I thought it was genius when I first saw it, and the material is readily available.

30-12-2012 22:29

josesantos

Re: pic: WCD

Seems like a pretty fantastic idea altogether. Have you considered using rod ends instead eye bolts for tensioning? I might be misunderstanding how your system works, but the eye bolts in your CAD seem excessively large compared to the bolts being pulled.

31-12-2012 00:58

Garrett.d.w

Re: pic: WCD

This is genius

One question, so how do you keep overzealous tightening of the two black bolts from crushing your bearing block? (or am I just missing something )

31-12-2012 01:05

rcmolloy

Re: pic: WCD

How about the idea of no bearing blocks at all?

31-12-2012 01:07

Mk.32

Re: pic: WCD

This is what we did with our off season robot. We used the correct Center to Center for 25 chain, the did loosen a bit but over 3 off season competitions but we never lost a chain.

We are looking into going to belts however for our new iteration of the drive.

31-12-2012 01:08

DampRobot

Re: pic: WCD

I, for one, think this is really the best solution, but it takes too much guts for me to try out. We didn't prototype a exact c-c drive in the offseason, and there's too much potential for failure for my comfort level. I would need to know that we had this design in the bag (like you guys do) to use it during the season.

31-12-2012 01:43

the.miler

Re: pic: WCD

Jose,

I clearly haven't searched McMaster closely enough. The rod ends seem like a great idea; I used the eyebolt mostly because it was the first thing that came to mind, and will work just fine, as I only need to pull on the bearing block to achieve correct chain tension. If the rod ends become necessary, I will be indebted to you for having brought them to my attention

Garrett,

Again, I was not a member of Team 846 when we first used this design, so I do not know what ferocious punishment was threatened upon those who tightened the bearing block too tight I imagine that if you put some sort of spacer inside (or stack a bunch of those cool little VEXPro washers inside), just a touch smaller than the width of the tube you are clamping with the bearing block, you would prevent the bearing block from ever being tightened tight enough to cause failure.

All you fixed C-C proponents:

Yes, I wish we could go fixed C-C . . . with belts! That would be amazing. I do not think we would ever go fixed C-C with chain, we've just had too many issues with sprockets wearing down and consequently changing the tension on the chain . . . never mind just the stretching with time. As we get a little more experience with using 7075 for our sprockets or even implementing our off-season belt drive design, we may reconsider that stance. If any of you guys try it out (or in 973's case, have), we'd love to hear how that went.

31-12-2012 02:11

MichaelBick

Re: pic: WCD

I'd be scared with #25 chain and/or indirect drive.

31-12-2012 02:56

Mk.32

Re: pic: WCD

All I am going to say we did it: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38147
Ran 3 off seasons, not a single chain lost.

31-12-2012 03:59

MichaelBick

Re: pic: WCD

If you really need to that would probably be fine(but only if you're direct driving your centers). I just see so limited downside in going without bearing blocks. If you have the resources to spend on completely custom gearboxes then it's not going to take very long to make 8-12 973/1323 bearing blocks. Especially now with the new WCP gearboxes you can shift the resources used to make the gearboxes over to making bearing blocks that improve your consistency and efficiency.

31-12-2012 11:57

Aren Siekmeier

Re: pic: WCD

But the point is that if you simply don't need them, don't bother with the weight, complexity, cost, or manufacturing time, and the resources you would have shifted from gearboxes to bearing blocks can now be focused on something more relevant to the challenge. The question is whether you need them, and there is some solid evidence coming forward that you don't (with the usual caveat: if you do it right).

And I'm not sure what, if anything, direct driving the center wheel would have to do with an exact c-c?

31-12-2012 13:11

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: WCD

He is concerned about losing mobility (chain popping off) when using #25 chain without bearing blocks.

31-12-2012 13:59

Aren Siekmeier

Re: pic: WCD

I still see no difference between an indirect drive with bearing blocks and an indirect drive without, since maintaining tension on the chain from transmission to first driven wheel is as simple as a slotted transmission noun. That point of failure doesn't depend at all on an ability to move wheels to adjust tension. And beyond that, the system is identical to a direct driven WCD (w/ or w/o blocks). I see bearing blocks and direct drive as two completely independent design decisions, though if there are other details I have overlooked I would be glad to hear them.

31-12-2012 14:07

Chris is me

Re: pic: WCD

With a direct drive live axle drivetrain (or any chain drive), you need a method to tension the chain. Since this isn't an indirect drive, moving the gearbox isn't an option. The most efficient way to do it is to move the wheels slightly outward or inward, hence bearing blocks.

31-12-2012 15:36

craigboez

Re: pic: WCD

We had an 8WD WCD last season. The siderails were 1" x 2" x .125" rectangular tubing, and we put the bearings right into the siderails, no bearing blocks. They were designed to use exact C-to-C for #25 chain. Our thinking is that if the chain ever stretched to the point of being a problem, we'd replace it with new un-stretched chain. This served us well through two regionals. We never replaced a chain. Looking back, I think I'd have the students replace the chain at the beginning of each regional just to be safe.

See here for CAD:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2752

31-12-2012 18:26

Adam.garcia

Re: pic: WCD

Has anybody been able to find the CAD models for the WCP 2-speed Shifters? It doesn't look like it is yet available on the website.

31-12-2012 18:27

MichaelBick

Re: pic: WCD

Both Mathew and I got it directly from RC himself. Try PMing him for the CAD

31-12-2012 20:02

DampRobot

Re: pic: WCD

Seconded. RC's very good about answering email. I got my model directly from him too.

01-01-2013 00:32

josesantos

Re: pic: WCD

I haven't downloaded them myself, but it appears that the CADs you're looking for are here: http://wcproducts.net/cad/

01-01-2013 01:04

Gary.C

Re: pic: WCD

Correct, working on getting the rest of the missing models up, but all the important ones are there.

Each part has its CAD model on its respective page now! (Still working on getting them all covered)

Such as WCP DS: Dual Speed

http://wcproducts.net/wcp-00100/

01-01-2013 13:34

rees2001

Re: pic: WCD

This was our approach last year also. We did do a few things to help prevent the loss of a chain. First of all our chains were all internal, placed inside the 1.5 x 2 frame rails. We changed our chains before the start of our second regional, before Championship, and again before IRI. We have had the same chains on since IRI which includes MANY hours of demos, Beta testing, drive practice, and the Ruckus.
Overall we didn't see much wear on the sprockets but the chain does stretch quite a but. We have looked at adding a chain tensioner to the system. If the chains were external I would look into a system to tension the chains.
Cutting the frame rails with exact c-c and not worrying about additional machine time for bearing blocks is nice. It gives us time to work on other aspects of the robot.

01-01-2013 13:41

AdamHeard

Re: pic: WCD

There clearly isn't a correct bearing block design for all teams with all resource sets across the board.

I think the distinguishing factor is teams that know how to machine and commonly do it, and those that machine less or have a buddy, sponsor, etc... make stuff.

If a team has a manual mill in house and regularly uses it, the bearing block design we make is just as fast to make (or even faster the way we cut them) than most of the ideas presented in this thread that are less rigid and functional. Our blocks look big and to someone who isn't used to milling it might seem like a lot of material removal, but it really isn't. We could manufacture a season set within 2-4 hours (that's 20-40).

The most important aspect of a bearing block for a WCD is rigidity. When it is clamped to the tubing, there must be no slop or play.

01-01-2013 19:20

josesantos

Re: pic: WCD

Care to share?

03-01-2013 04:01

Adam.garcia

Re: pic: WCD

Can you please explain how you are mounting your bumpers to those frame rails?

How are you attaching the bumpers to the front and the back?

03-04-2013 19:23

Cash4587

Re: pic: WCD

Where can I get the CAD files for the WCP DS: DUAL SPEED Gearbox?? Idk how to download the ones from their site and use them in solid works..

03-04-2013 19:33

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: WCD

Did you try right click and save as?

03-04-2013 19:42

Cash4587

Re: pic: WCD

Yeah.. it comes up and opens as a text document and incompatible file.

03-04-2013 20:34

msimon785

Re: pic: WCD

You need to right click > save as.
Afterwards confirm that the filetype is in fact .stp. Oftentimes it will add a secondary extension. If that is the case, remove it.