Logan's Chassis.

[Tanner]

Here's what I have so far.

-Tanner

[Tanner]

Here's a new drawing with some stuff.

Tell me what you want to change or whatever.

And Logan - I can't get Inventor to tell me the angle between the two wheels, so that'd not a very good place to rely on for measurement/dimensions.

-Tanner

[Sunny]

Just a note to Logan/whoever's building this, pleace take into account the gussets, both the box gussets and 90 degree gussets when cutting pieces.

EDIT:

While looking at some of the measurements, I noticed that the angle piece is like 9.9" long. Considering the use of 4" wheels, I think we can afford to cut that down and stretch out the entire wheel base.

[Sunny]

I added this to this thread, because it's really the only one open talking bout chassis.

Although it's not a major component of the robot, I do think it's one that cannot be overlooked; the hood. The hood on top of the robot needs to be curved, spherical, whatever, in order to prevent balls from coming down and landing on top of the robot.

Now whether we use wood, cardboard, whateva, can decided later on, I think it'll just be nice to keep this in mind.

[Tanner]

Although it's not a major component of the robot, I do think it's one that cannot be overlooked; the hood. The hood on top of the robot needs to be curved, spherical, whatever, in order to prevent balls from coming down and landing on top of the robot.

Definitely something to keep in mind, but I don't think it should be too hard to add a sheet of polycarbonate.

I made some changes to the outside 4" wheel struts. I made two more models with a 5" piece and a 6" piece. I didn't think it would be very useful to try 7" as the wheels other wheels are like 7.5" or something.

I'm not sure how to interpret the results of the Transparency Test. Having the 4" wheels closer to the ground, increases the distance between when the 4" wheel touches the bump and the first 6" wheel touches. I'm not really sure what will happen with the weight on the robot. I've attached some pictures of a point in driving over where it just seems interesting.

What I'd like to do is find some sort of physics simulator to see how the robot will ride over the bump. That'd be the fastest and easiest solution.

-Tanner

[Sunny]

It seems to me that the second picture is just a 45 degree angle, but then again, the angle of the bumps did change...or it's not 45 anymore.

I think the first transparency does a better job of avoid the flippy problem that I think we "might" face.

I believe this chassis will climb the bump find, with the lower piece moved down a little bit. If we do face issues, then I think it's easy to switch from the tank style to a 6 WD.

Logan, can you post the link to the video of the 6WD climbing over the bump?

[Tanner]

The bumps rules changed? Hm... Then my bumps aren't accurate anymore.

I'm playing with some physics simulations in Blender (go open source!) and it's quite interesting... Nothing useful yet, but its just fun to watch. I may post a video in a few.

-Tanner

[Sunny]

The bumps rules changed? Hm... Then my bumps aren't accurate anymore.

Not sure if you have this in your bumps, but the height has changed to 13.25"(I think). You might wanna check the field drawings for official stuff.

[Tanner]

The bumps rules changed? Hm... Then my bumps aren't accurate anymore.

Not sure if you have this in your bumps, but the height has changed to 13.25"(I think). You might wanna check the field drawings for official stuff.

Eh, I'll have to see what has changed. I don't think it would change too much. I hope...

Here's a executable to play with the Side_B I made which is the 4" wheel 5" down. Use left/right arrow keys to move around. Mind you the wheels don't actually turn, I'm just saying "push the drivetrain to the left at x speed", so coming off it isn't exactly what you'd think.

-Tanner

[Logan]

The team that tested the 6wd chassis over the bump took their video off...

Nice work Tanner!