Out of curiosity, what is the thickness on the side plates. My guess is that it looks like 1/8.
Correct.
Looks very pretty. Seems like you chose to compromise a tremendous amount of strength for appearances though. I hope you are planning on using the bumpers as a structural member
Just out of curiosity, how come you guys went with belt drive mecanum rather than the normal direct drive?
From some collision tests and general observation, we don’t see too much of a lack of strength. It’s more than strong enough all-around - the only primarily weak point is at the “X” cut out on the long side-plates, but even that is fairly strong and will be stabilized further with standoffs yet to come.
When you say direct drive, do you mean direct attachment to a gearbox?
There were a few logistical reasons we didn’t do that, but overall because we had the resources to make a belt drive right away.
Ya thats what I meant. So it wasnt for like CG or spacing for other things? It was just because you could?
CG was one of the points that came up, actually (I forgot about it as I replied to your initial inquiry).
For our climbing mechanism we need as much weight center as possible, so gearboxes at both ends were a barrier.
But otherwise it was less of “we could” than “we could do it given what we have now, or wait to order more parts to perform the same function” so we went with what we had.
I’m going to quote my post in the other thread you posted with your practice robot.
Have you actually driven this yet? It is far too fast.
Good to hear this statement. I could see definitely see some buckling of the material inwards with a solid hit from another robot at the right angle. You guys can keep the aesthetic appearance of the drive super nice with pocketing that benefits not only the appearance but functionality as well.
How are you planning on mounting your bumpers?
Using special shaped C-Channelish brackets that are ~ 4.8" high and about ~0.75" in. IE, it basically wraps around the side and front plates. Then the top and bottom of the C-Channel have a hole that mounts to the plate itself, and the long part to the bumper plywood.
I second this, are you planning on having a 30fps drive?
We had the previous drivetrain (the 80/20 one) driven, and it seemed to be fine.
I’m not particularly sure what the software team did, its possible that they set a cap on the motor output speed (such as setting 75% as a max for the motor controllers).
But I can say for sure that it was nowhere near 30 fps.
If so, you are limiting the torque you are getting. This shouldn’t be bad for mecanums, as I assume you won’t be in pushing matches, but it really hurts your acceleration.
The speed you have on your speed controller’s will never help you with torque. You WILL NOT have enough torque to turn your wheels, and decreasing the current won’t help that. You need to change your gearing. Have you tested your drive train? If not I would HIGHLY suggest it.
My team had direct driven Macanum’s (6in from CIMple boxes) in 2011 and we could only drive forward/backwards and turn, we couldn’t strafe because we didn’t have enough torque to turn the wheel opposite to eachother. PLEASE CHECK YOUR DRIVE NOW!!! Before it’s too late and you’re a sitting potato on the field.
What do you characterize as not being able to strafe?
Did you not have enough torque to strafe period?
When we tested this on the previous drivetrain, it succesfully strafed, albeit it a slight angle rather than directly perpendicular.
it would attempt to strafe, and would kinda move, but not really.
There was not enough reduction, usually people would use toughboxes on macanum’s we were dumb and didn’t
did you have 150lbs on that robot? that’s when you need to the torque.
What about putting a Mini-CIM in each gearbox for additional torque? Or RS-775’s on CIM-U-Lators?