|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Rough draft of a drive concept, based on feedback I received on my gearbox idea. The main motivation is that I don't like the unserviceability of belts in WCD, nor do I like ceding the entire middle of the robot to the motors, so I wanted something that would preserve the simplicity and easy wheel access of a WCD while allowing easy belt access and gearbox removal.
Drive consists of modified WCP 3CIM dog-shifters with CIMs floating over the wheels. 4'' VexPro traction wheels, power transfer with 9mm VexPro belts. As was suggested, the gearbox shaft couples to the center wheel shaft with a hex sleeve (not visible, enclosed in the 2x1.5 that the gearboxes mount to). Could save a bit of space/weight by changing the 2x1.5 to 2x1, but I'm not sure if the coupler would engage enough of the hex shaft in that small amount of space.
Chassis construction would be with gusset plates (not shown) and #10 bolts or rivets.
Again, feedback welcome.
14-04-2014 18:15
DampRobotHow does this improve the serviceability of the drivetrain over a WCD, given that you need to remove the output shaft of the gearbox in both setups?
14-04-2014 18:18
Oblarg|
How does this improve the serviceability of the drivetrain over a WCD, given that you need to remove the output shaft of the gearbox in both setups?
|
14-04-2014 18:22
Henrique SchmitI think this is a great idea, it saves a lot of space for the electronics, but i think you should consider that this makes you CoG higher, increasing the change of your robot tripping. Also the cims are way more exposed out there, and you should consider that. The cables coming out of the cims will also be out there, you should check if they wont leave the frame perimeter or get bent too much. Where they are right now unfortunate accidents could happen, even if the chance of someone messing up your wiring out there is low you shoud be very carfeful with that, some teams tend to have the worst luck during the regionals. At NYC this year our main braker was exposed and a team managed to accidentally hit it in a way that it turned our robot off, so i suggest making a case for the cims and the wires if you keep that design.
14-04-2014 18:24
cxcadIf you are really concerned about packaging, I would get rid of the 2x1's on the outside of wheel well and replace it with .25 in plate, or get rid of it (WCD axle's are cantilevered; outside support not necessary.)
14-04-2014 18:25
Oblarg|
If you are really concerned about packaging, I would get rid of the 2x1's on the outside of wheel well and replace it with .25 in plate, or get rid of it (WCD axle's are cantilevered; outside support not necessary.)
|
14-04-2014 18:52
cxcad|
These aren't WCD axles, they're dead axles (except for the center, which is a live hex axle coupled rotationally to the gearbox output shaft).
|
14-04-2014 19:23
JoeyLMy team had a similar idea for the gearboxes this year, putting 3 CIMs on the outside of the drivebase.
Here's a few shots of the gearbox: https://drive.google.com/folderview?...&usp=sha ring
In our experience, it works quite well for keeping the COG low and keeping the weight on the outside. The gearbox and CIMs are also very accessible. There's quite a bit of force on the inner gearbox plates though (the entire gearbox is essentially resting on them), just something to bear in mind.
Here's what our robot looked like at the end of the season: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/40089
Texas Torque did a similar gearbox last year, too. They used WCD. You can see a shot at 53s. http://youtu.be/dSjHFgbcJZc
14-04-2014 19:52
tim-timIt is a good start. Here are a few questions though:
Why not get rid of the unnecessary metal on the inner gearbox plates? Leave some meat around the upper bearing and the get rid of the rest.
Why did you place the pulleys on the outside of the wheels? For turning, stability, and other purposes it would be better to get the wheels out the extra ~1" on both sides.
Is your center pulley wide enough to fit 2 belts side-by-side? All the pulleys appear to be the same size.
CG does seem high, but depending on the game this may not matter. If you need essentially no ground clearance (this year), you can have your battery sit about a 1/2" off the ground. [Legally] Max your bumpers out to 20lbs and place them as low as legally allowed.
How are you bolting the chassis and it's components without collapsing the tube? It is not typically a problem with 1/8" walls, but every now and again you will have someone not paying attention and keep cranking on the bolt because they can still turn it.
14-04-2014 22:33
Oblarg|
It is a good start. Here are a few questions though:
Why not get rid of the unnecessary metal on the inner gearbox plates? Leave some meat around the upper bearing and the get rid of the rest. |
| Why did you place the pulleys on the outside of the wheels? For turning, stability, and other purposes it would be better to get the wheels out the extra ~1" on both sides. |
| Is your center pulley wide enough to fit 2 belts side-by-side? All the pulleys appear to be the same size. |
| How are you bolting the chassis and it's components without collapsing the tube? It is not typically a problem with 1/8" walls, but every now and again you will have someone not paying attention and keep cranking on the bolt because they can still turn it. |
|
I think this is a great idea, it saves a lot of space for the electronics, but i think you should consider that this makes you CoG higher, increasing the change of your robot tripping. Also the cims are way more exposed out there, and you should consider that. The cables coming out of the cims will also be out there, you should check if they wont leave the frame perimeter or get bent too much. Where they are right now unfortunate accidents could happen, even if the chance of someone messing up your wiring out there is low you shoud be very carfeful with that, some teams tend to have the worst luck during the regionals. At NYC this year our main braker was exposed and a team managed to accidentally hit it in a way that it turned our robot off, so i suggest making a case for the cims and the wires if you keep that design.
|
14-04-2014 22:37
cxcad|
My general solution to this is either a) hover over the students while they assemble it and remind them or b) make wood inserts. I prefer a), since b) adds weight and is a pain. It is 1/8'' wall + gusset plate thickness, though, and I'm pretty sure I saw someone shear a 1/4-20 bolt head off at 449 putting a similarly-constructed thing together without crunching the assembly.
|
14-04-2014 22:44
cadandcookies|
I think this is a great idea, it saves a lot of space for the electronics, but i think you should consider that this makes you CoG higher, increasing the change of your robot tripping.
|

14-04-2014 22:45
tim-tim
14-04-2014 22:55
WoollyIf COG is a concern, you could do an 8 wheel drive and rotate the gearbox 90 degrees provided you move the belts to the inside of the drive rail, and design the mounting plate of the gearbox as a frame element.
15-04-2014 00:47
OblargI'm really not all that concerned about CG; the highest point of this whole assembly is ~10'' off the ground.
Re: Pulley sizes, after toying around a bit I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep them all the same size, for ease of replacement. Making the outer pulleys smaller involves either greatly complicating the wheel spacer arrangement (which is very simple right now) or having the wheels out-of-line, and moreover requires that you keep more backups.