|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
This is a minibot I CADed up a little while ago and then spent some time learning how to render with. I really like the results personally.
The bot itself is made using 4 identical sideplates that are symmetrical in all directions and inspired by gearboxes found on WCDs like 254s. Other than that the only manufacturing is cut the tubes to length and press star nuts into the ones in the middle.
In it's current (easily modifiable) configuration it's geared 4.29:1 with 4 in omni wheels for a final free speed of 21ft/s with 1 CIM per side expandable to 2 per side if you widen the center beams.
The plan is to use RC receivers and LiPo batteries to save weight, space and money (and maybe add a little extra juice, the CIMs and Talons can handle it). Before the controller and battery (so everything in the rendering) this should cost just under $500 to make.
19-07-2014 11:16
magnetsThat's kind of cool. What on it makes it cost $500? $150 for the talons, $50 for the CIMs, and $300 for the aluminum/wheels?
19-07-2014 20:35
Scott Kozutsky|
That's kind of cool. What on it makes it cost $500? $150 for the talons, $50 for the CIMs, and $300 for the aluminum/wheels?
|
19-07-2014 21:41
BBray_T1296I think with something of that weight could get away with a significantly higher top speed.
Recall that a 150lb robot with 6 cims could top out at ~18fps, and that only because they can only travel 50ft before stopping.
If you were running it down a street or something you could push a full FRC robot to 25+fps over a hundred feet.
An antweight in comparison with just 2 cims should have no problem reaching 30 fps in 15-20 feet or so.
Then again, if you are operating in more confined places like classrooms or such, you would gain a control advantage topping out slower.
Also be careful, CIMs produce a significant amount of noise in the FM band. We converted a kitbot to run on a FM system and had control problems when we got 30+ feet away. We decided to seriously isolate our antenna from the CIMs, by putting the antenna higher and also wrapping the motors in layers of aluminum foil in an attempt to Faraday cage them.
19-07-2014 22:00
mman1506|
Also be careful, CIMs produce a significant amount of noise in the FM band. We converted a kitbot to run on a FM system and had control problems when we got 30+ feet away. We decided to seriously isolate our antenna from the CIMs, by putting the antenna higher and also wrapping the motors in layers of aluminum foil in an attempt to Faraday cage them.
|
19-07-2014 23:34
ToddF
|
I actually parted out every part and pre-tax and pre-shipping it works out to $465. Those gears, pulleys, belts, bolts and tube nuts really add up. 4.5 in bolts are expensive.
|
20-07-2014 00:12
Scott Kozutsky|
If you post your BOM, we might be able to help you find less expensive sources for your components.
|
20-07-2014 15:40
Alan Anderson
That looks like a very clean design. Well done.
But I can't understand the reason for using identically-oriented omniwheels in all four corners. Won't that let the 'bot slide sideways uncontrollably?
20-07-2014 16:23
mman1506|
That looks like a very clean design. Well done.
But I can't understand the reason for using identically-oriented omniwheels in all four corners. Won't that let the 'bot slide sideways uncontrollably? |
21-07-2014 02:02
nathannfmIf you do go to 4 CIMs I would gear them 1 to each wheel. If you keep the control system and batteries in the center I bet you could get it to flip and keep driving "upsidedown", that would be a pretty cool trick for demos. (added benefit, no belts)
21-07-2014 12:41
AdamHeard
Make sure the lipos you get can handle the potentially huge currents 2 CIMs would cause. Trying to draw too much from them can cause thermal runaway and fire.
In terms of size and weight, I think you'd get a more satisfying performance by switching to 550's or 775 sized motors as you can shave a lot of size and weight off, without a large power loss.
21-07-2014 13:25
Chris EndresI would have to agree with Adam; for this size, you wouldn't need that much power from two CIMs to move the weight of the bot.
21-07-2014 13:30
AdamHeard
|
That looks like a very clean design. Well done.
But I can't understand the reason for using identically-oriented omniwheels in all four corners. Won't that let the 'bot slide sideways uncontrollably? |
21-07-2014 14:00
JohnFogarty
|
Essentially 33 ran this drive this year.
Quite a few teams have run "butterfly" drives that have this + drop down tractions as a second mode. We found that the robot tracks straight as on carpet the omnis still have appreciable lateral rolling resistance. Our driver quickly figured out how to drift with it, and how to control those motions roughly. In summary, it's more far more controllable than people assume. |
21-07-2014 22:41
Scott Kozutsky|
Make sure the lipos you get can handle the potentially huge currents 2 CIMs would cause. Trying to draw too much from them can cause thermal runaway and fire.
In terms of size and weight, I think you'd get a more satisfying performance by switching to 550's or 775 sized motors as you can shave a lot of size and weight off, without a large power loss. |
21-07-2014 22:45
mman1506|
In terms of size and weight, I think you'd get a more satisfying performance by switching to 550's or 775 sized motors as you can shave a lot of size and weight off, without a large power loss.
|
22-07-2014 18:05
ekapalkaI see you've got the rendering pretty well figured out. Could you share a bit about how it was done? It looks photorealistic 
22-07-2014 18:10
mman1506|
I see you've got the rendering pretty well figured out. Could you share a bit about how it was done? It looks photorealistic
![]() |
24-07-2014 19:00
Orion.DeYoe|
That looks like a very clean design. Well done.
But I can't understand the reason for using identically-oriented omniwheels in all four corners. Won't that let the 'bot slide sideways uncontrollably? |