pic: West Coast Altered



Basically a classic west coast drive train. This would use the new Bane Bots wheels specifically these:
http://banebots.com/pc/WHB-HS4-398/T80P-393BG-HS4

What this chassis specializes in is maintainability. The sides are held in by a pin and a plate. The pin is pulled inward by a spring housed inside two of the three cross members. To get the side off you simply pull the pin outward, slide the plate out sideways, let the pin fall back into place and pull the side off. The idea would be to replace and entire side if something breaks, that way the pressure to fix the broken side is lower and the robot can be ready for the next match in just a few minutes. In addition, it doesn’t involve any welding and helps in the goal to make a bot with no threaded fasteners. I was also having fun with the rendering since roboticWanderor has been showing off.

In any case, the reduction to the wheels would be the standard gears used in the toughbox. It weighs in according to SolidWorks at 22 lbs, but I’m sure I believe that so I would probably put the weight at closer to 25-30 lbs.

Mostly just a fun project to incorporate the new wheels and have a chassis that would be really easy to work on.

The way the 1x1 tubes go all the way through the chassis is exactly what 696 did this year. Very strong, minimizes warping during welding. Worked pretty well.

is there a pin or some kind of retaining device on the inside of the chassis rails to keep the frame from squishing and becoming narrower after a side impact?

I don’t think I’d want to build a robot with that many quick releases in the drivetrain, but from what I’ve seen at FIRST competitions just about anything will work! Very clever idea.

Which part of the frame do you plan to mount the mechanisms to?

Nice! Looks cool!

I also like your gearbox design

There is a retaining feature on the inside of the frame. The lexan on the top and botton of the cross supports would be pot riveted to the box beam keeping the side pieces from moving inward.

Any manipulators or other mehcanism would mount to the black supports because the side would be able to come off. In terms of the gearbox, hey why improve on something that aint broke. Its only partially custom (The side plates would be custom) but still sleek and easy to replace if broken. Of course unlike your design it isn’t a shifting transmition.

To save a bit of weight, you could probably go with smaller sprockets.
Are you using 25 or 35 chain?

Also, what is the material for the gearbox sideplates?
254 typically uses Delrin, as it is much lighter than aluminum and strong enough for this application

Finally, when looking at your picture, there are grooves cut out in the front of the side tubing.
Am i correct in thinking that you will be putting another black crossbar in the front?

Maverick is fun :wink:

Is this a challenge??:stuck_out_tongue:
Seriously, looks good. very innovative way to attach the side rails. I’m gonna have to steal that idea about that crossbeam going though the entire rail. I like it.

What benefit does it provide that you don’t have now?

Passing the cross members through the side rails makes the design more complicated to manufacture and absorbs impacts as shear against the pin instead of compression of the tubing.

I was assuming that the cross beams were welded in the hole. assuming the weld has proper penetration, the crossbeams would both be able to sustain compression loads just as well, as well as supporting loads from the front of the chassis without shearing the weld. I think we’re already going to have to machine the 1x2 rails, what is one more op?

I believe Alex’s intent was that the cross members be pinned in place, making the side rails removable. Welding them would place them into compression and be fine – but if you’re going to weld them, why bother machining a hole into the side rail at all?

Again, though, it’s all a matter of weighing the good against the bad. Machining work is resource and time intensive, so we prioritize other solutions. For some folks, it’s a way of ensuring quality workmanship and isn’t an undue burden.

The sprockets are for #25 chain. The reason that they are so large is because I was originally planning on using cross braces that are as tall as the sides and the sprockets would need the chain to clear them. I simply haven’t been motivated to change them.

The side plates are currently aluminum but theres no reason they need to stay that way. The grooves in the front to so that the sides are identical and can be switched without needing to have one of each. The actual would probably use another to mount bumpers.

As a compromise, you could always make the front and back crossbraces the full height of the sidebeams, and use the half size ones for the in-between crossbraces.

This would allow you to keep the sprockets small and to still retain more strength than having all half size crossbeams.

It should be! CAD off! Gogogogogogo!

Yeah, definitely inspired by the same team(s) yours was.

Actually, my design was inspired by a whiteboard sketch by James Fry. Who knows where he got his ideas, might have been there. As for the actual mechanics, mine was a single speed, akin to this one, rather than a two speed, akin to the ones you posted. Same shape though (a no-nonsense, no real extra material design that I wholeheartedly approve of).

i wish, my computer is down atm and it will be a few days before i can get back to SW, luckily all my CAD files were backed up! expect to see some cool stuff soon.

i have some better pictures of that drivetrain if anyone wants to take a look! man i had to dig deep to find them but i got em!

hehehehe, when, where and what are we CAD’ing? :cool:

The braces weren’t going to be full height for strength reasons, They would have been full height because the original idea was for the frame to be completely pop riveted and all the braces would need to be the same height for this.

oh, and yes Maverick is fun.