May I suggest more hardox? The more parts you get cut the cheaper they are, so you could get a big stack of weapon teeth and spacers (same shape as the teeth but with, uh, no tooth) cut for a few quid each, then you’ll be able to fine tune the size and weight of the tooth by swapping out parts. You could go for a big lump of tool steel, but it’ll be a much more expensive part to make and will likely immediately get chunked and end up out of balance.
So, reading the size requirements for the safety box, the size is 46 by 43 by 38, all in centimetres. The bot, without the teeth, is currently 40cm in diameter. If I add the teeth, to… give it a 2.5 centimetre bite, would I still be within size tolerances fully? (I didn’t include height because I’m more than within height tolerance at this current time.)
Question for the EO’s
My take outside the safety box fitting question is that ~400mm is immense for anything beetle. That’s hobbyweight borderline featherweight size. I have a feeling you’ll be fighting weight and tip speeds
1 Like
yeah i agree with harry, i think you really should look at how you can shrink this your really going to struggle to make the shell ridged enough. for example my hobby weight shell spinner is 350mm at the teeth
1 Like
Well, I think I’m going to do a little bit of redesigning… again, but hey, that’s the cost of progress and sheer idiocy. And I think I might go ahead and reorient the motor to a horizontal base, like Rhys suggested, but this idea is currently up in the air at the moment, sooo… we’ll see.
Is it even a robot if you haven’t done at least one full redesign before it even exists?
2 Likes
as someone who’s just decided to rush build a shell spinner for new bloods next month during my finals this is an interesting re-read.
My take having done a bit of work of my own now (although not a shuffle shell) is that the JCR motor is probably not ideal for a non-direct drive setup since it’s really bulky due to huge bearings and so makes the packaging a nightmare. I considered it for mine but I don’t know if it’s quite beefy enough for a full shell. that being said Seth did run it direct on subtraction which has a pretty huge weapon but with a shell where the load is offset I think you’d get extra twisty forces that could make it sad .
I think packaging is the biggest obstacle on shells. I’m aiming for ~ 204mm tooth diameter. a lot lot smaller than your 400-350 range. I’m doing a hubmotor but I think on a friction shell even with your shufflers you can get your diameter down a lott with improved packaging and turning that motor upright.
1 Like