Ya, we are definitely getting that. Pretty much has already been decided.
AndyMark hat in Jerusalem
I suspect a couple of reasons:
-Shipping
-Ease of fabrication–I’m not sure what length of box aluminum AndyMark is buying, but 31 may go into it pretty well.
-Cutting short any arguments about making it too easy for FRC teams wanting to use this product; while you could, you’d be making serious trade-offs for it.
Well I don’t understand the shipping, doesn’t AM currently ship their C-base at 35".
http://www.andymark.biz/am-0202.html
Why not make the this rail the same length? Or maybe the 2011 game asks for a smaller sizing box 
-RC
Which 2011 game: A, B, C, or D (or whatever designation the GDC is using)?
I think it is so that teams can use an 8" wheel with the tube because at 31" the shafts are placed 27.52" apart according to the print which means when using an 8" wheel your over all length will be right about 35.52"
Also you can get 3 tubes out of a 8’ piece of stock with 3" extra
I agree with you. Where did you find the print? I am wondering how much the center wheel is lowered?
They do–but going down to 31 may allow them to squeeze it into a cheaper box (or get a cheaper shipping rate). That said, I think Jeff may have the better concept.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. You’ll still make some trade-offs (especially if the current GDC direction of bumper zone rules continues), but there’s nothing stopping you in theory from going down this road.
Yes, this is the main reason. The center-to-center distance from the center of the front to back wheel is 27.5". This distance seems to work well with a 4wd 8" Mecanum setup. I predict that this setup will be used many times for applications outside of <em>FIRST</em> Robotics Competition setups.
If the demand is high for this type of setup, then we can vary the length of this tube.
Yep, the center drop is 0.13".
This design decision has no bearing nor any result from any shipping or GDC decisions (at least, not that I know of). As mentioned above, this setup makes a very clean drive base for people who want to make a simple drive system for their application, whatever that is.
Thank you for all of the input.
Sincerely,
Andy
I, for one, would vote for a longer verison of these nifty rails that doesn’t result in the wheels being outside of the frame boundry. That would make attaching bumpers easier. I guess the wheels would stay where they are and the rail would extend another 3" front and back. Teams could always cut them off if they didn’t need that extra material.
Ideally, without concern for AndyMark’s SKUs, it would be great to have rails optimized for 4", 6" and 8" wheels at FRC lengths.
Yeah, will AM be selling some bracketry to attach bumpers legally once we all know the rules?
This must be expected to be used for off-season activity.
Unless the rules change drastically this is over the $$$ limit for a single purchase.
It looks like fun though…
There is only so much money to be made from FIRST, and I know AndyMark has been venturing into other product lines. I imagine this is geared as a general purpose mobility platform and not specifically for FRC use.
With regard to bumper mounting and longer Nano Tubes, I emailed Andy Baker about this and got this reply:
*Thank you for this note. We are working on a bumper attachment design that is efficient, simple, and effective. If we can’t come up with a good solution for this, then we will offer a longer version of the same tube, as you are requesting.
Sincerely,
Andy*
I’m interested in the weight of the Toughbox Mini versus the Toughbox before getting super duper excited about it.
Toughbox Mini weight: 1.94 pounds
Toughbox weight: 2.38 pounds
So, if 2 gearboxes are used on the robot, then 0.88 pounds are saved if Toughbox Minis are used. This weight savings is the main reason why we are calling it “mini”.
Sincerely,
Andy
I can’t clearly see from the pictures there, but what is the purpose of the finned housing?