|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Here's a render of a butterfly drive I've been designing for fun and Solidworks practice.
-Structure is laser-cut .25" birch plywood
-Only other custom components are 3d-printed spacers and axles turned from hex shaft.
-Currently weighs 30.5 lbs.
-Geared for 5.7 fps on Colson wheels and 11.5 fps on omni wheels (adjusted).
Questions or suggestions are welcome.
17-06-2014 19:21
Rylet1086Is there any reason why you cant shift the colsons closer together and use two pistons between the two sides instead of the four to reduce complexity? Otherwise it looks good although you may find you want to gear it to be faster.
17-06-2014 20:37
AllenGregoryIV
I would highly suggest you have the traction wheels on the outside and the omni wheels on the inside. We did it like your current setup this year, against the advice of teams like 148, and we regret it. When you shift into traction and want to push you'll tip slightly and end up partially on your omni wheels.
17-06-2014 20:43
ekapalkaSo butterfly drive is like octocanum with omni wheels instead of mecanum wheels?
17-06-2014 20:55
s_forbesLooks good, I want to see the real life prototype!
|
I would highly suggest you have the traction wheels on the outside and the omni wheels on the inside. We did it like your current setup this year, against the advice of teams like 148, and we regret it. When you shift into traction and want to push you'll tip slightly and end up partially on your omni wheels.
|
17-06-2014 21:37
z_beeblebrox
What about arranging the power transmission components like this? (Warning: MS Paint Art):
That would allow all 2 (or 3) CIMs on each side to drive both wheels and move the omni wheels to the inside.
17-06-2014 23:27
sanddragI like it. I have to ask, does your team have a laser capable of making this? If so, what kind?
17-06-2014 23:44
z_beeblebrox
|
I like it. I have to ask, does your team have a laser capable of making this? If so, what kind?
|
17-06-2014 23:45
|
So butterfly drive is like octocanum with omni wheels instead of mecanum wheels?
|
17-06-2014 23:52
AllenGregoryIV
|
What about arranging the power transmission components like this? (Warning: MS Paint Art):
![]() That would allow all 2 (or 3) CIMs on each side to drive both wheels and move the omni wheels to the inside. |
18-06-2014 02:01
z_beeblebrox
Here's a 6-CIM version, with the wheels belt-driven from a central gearbox. I did not switch the omni and Colson wheels; the robot has to tilt to an extreme angle for the raised omni wheels to touch the ground. It now has adjusted speeds of 13.8 and 6.9 fps.
18-06-2014 02:42
|
Here's a 6-CIM version, with the wheels belt-driven from a central gearbox. I did not switch the omni and Colson wheels; the robot has to tilt to an extreme angle for the raised omni wheels to touch the ground. It now has adjusted speeds of 13.8 and 6.9 fps.
|
18-06-2014 08:09
Joe G.
Looks good! Always love to see laser cut wood construction in FRC. Really like the 6 CIM setup with the reversed gearbox. Lot more open in the middle than a lot of octocanum and butterfly designs. With the 6 CIM layout especially, I would recommend flipping your wheels so that it pivots about the traction wheel rather than the omni. Doing this prevents the module from being side loaded when pushed sideways in traction mode.
Have you considered using pancake cylinders for module actuation to save some space and weight?
18-06-2014 08:13
pfreivaldLooks great! In addition to the above (swapping wheel placement), I think you could get a more compact design using four fat pancake cylinders instead of four longer cylinders with a long lever arm on the butterfly. You're losing a lot of pod-turning torque based on that angle anyway, so why not mount a pancake cylinder so it can push the pod straight down?
(We've been iterating octocanum for quite a few years now, and that's how we intend to do it this year if we keep octocanum this year...which we may not.)
18-06-2014 11:54
AllenGregoryIV
|
With the 6 CIM layout especially, I would recommend flipping your wheels so that it pivots about the traction wheel rather than the omni. Doing this prevents the module from being side loaded when pushed sideways in traction mode.
|
18-06-2014 12:18
z_beeblebrox
|
The biggest issue with this is it makes it harder to do your reductions.
|
|
Have you considered using pancake cylinders for module actuation to save some space and weight?
|
18-06-2014 13:10
AllenGregoryIV
|
It's not too hard with the central gearbox design since you can do a second reduction with the belts to the modules. From JVN's calculator, a 12:60 reduction in the gearbox and a 24:42 reduction with the belts gives adjusted speeds of 6.4fps on the Colson wheels and 12.9 fps on the omni wheels.
|
18-06-2014 13:40
Chris is meIf it simplifies the design, you could consider the option of using shifters for the central gearboxes rather than a pulley reduction between the traction and omni wheel. That way, you can shift from high speed to high torque independently of which wheels are on the ground and pivoting about the traction wheel isn't a big hassle. However, this is added complexity.
20-06-2014 00:14
fb39ca4It's great to see another team going with this method of construction. Mine has been doing laser cut plywood chassis in the past two years, and we love it.
20-06-2014 00:21
z_beeblebrox
|
It's great to see another team going with this method of construction. Mine has been doing laser cut plywood chassis in the past two years, and we love it.
|
20-06-2014 02:27
RKIyerHow are the cut plywood pieces of your frame and wheel assemblies attached together? Are you using a glue? Or are there tiny screws?
20-06-2014 08:45
Electronica1|
Is there anywhere I could find more information on your designs and construction method? What thickness and type of wood did you use? How did it hold up in competition?
It's hard to find high-quality information about wood chassis in FRC since so few teams have used them. |
20-06-2014 11:13
z_beeblebrox
|
How are the cut plywood pieces of your frame and wheel assemblies attached together? Are you using a glue? Or are there tiny screws?
|
27-06-2014 07:47
z_beeblebrox

Here's my progress on the next iteration of the drivetrain. The chassis will be sturdier when complete, but the module and powertrain are just about done. Currently, it weighs 30.5 lbs (the same as the original 4-CIM version).
Improvements in this version include:
-Simpler and lighter powertrain due to direct-drive gearbox
-Stiffer module with less wasted space
-Smaller, lighter pancake cylinders for switching between wheels
-Narrower side rails and more open bellypan
The outside plates will be attached with T-nuts (http://goo.gl/XBWxdN) so they are removable for easy maintenance.
27-06-2014 17:57
z_beeblebrox
Here's the more-or-less complete version of the drivetrain, except for the finger joints, which are time-consuming and no fun to draw. Sturdier structure, lightening holes and encoder mounts are added. The pneumatic cylinder mounting is improved.
The two aluminum tubes on top are an example of how a hinged superstructure can be mounted, similar to our 2014 robot (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/39338).
I'd like to integrate bumper mounts into the wood frame, but am uncertain of how best to do so in a way that is simple, robust and allows for quick swaps. Anyone have ideas?

Unless anyone has ideas for improvement, next steps are probably cutting some test pieces on the laser to learn about best practices for finger joints, large parts and bearing fits before manufacturing a full drivetrain.