Everyone got how this works wrong - Lamborghini Active Wheel Carrier ACTUALLY explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- Nobody has explained it right if I am reading this patent correctly. So I built it. You could to, but you shouldn't.
Files here
github.com/kwakeham/LamboAWC
0:00 Demo
0:06 Intro
2:23 Patents and CAD
4:52 Build
6:53 Interesting Property
8:06 How it works
13:52 Partial Gear Explained
18:06 Wrap-up - Наука та технологія
I really have no clue on how or why I got here, but that was really enjoyable
I actually got here via LED matrix ear ring => Chimaera Robot => Lamborghini Active Wheel Centre
well explained, thank you! I saw the original video where they showed this off, and i had the idea it was something like this how it worked. but you gave the explenation in a whole other dimension.
looks very much like the thrust vectoring nozzle of a f35 in principle. obviously the stationary wheelcenter makes this unique.
Ya, I think that's the bit this is really based on. Though I've seen similar mechanisms, that last bit at the output, aligning that was new to me. Some of these mechanisms are super clever and yet so simple.
I dont know how this video found me but im glad it did. I had this idea a year or two ago. I wanted to use this concept as a tilt mechanism for a light or camera. was to lazy to figure out how to make it work. AND now i at least know it is possible. didnt think there exists something like this already (but im not surprised). Thank you for making that video. Maybe i get back to it now :)
Sounds like a cool idea. Especially if you are trying to make something like the Arri Javelin setup. I could see this working out well. Dust off the old trig books, it's not to bad as I highlighted.
Very cool. Thanks for the education.
I don't know who granted this patent, but it is absurd, the principle is very old and used a lot for adjustable centers that need to stay parallel (but not necessarily - as in this case), so how/why they got patent for this is beyond me - it's basic mechanics
2 angled centers are necessary because you may want/need to eliminate procession, meaning - make the adjustment happen in a single plane, because with only one of the angled elements, as you rotate it, it will "adjust" in 2 planes and may work against what the whole adjustment is trying to achieve
the main issue with this, if they are indeed sitting in ball or roller bearings, discounting the whole thing being ridiculously over complex solution for a problem that doesn't even bother anyone in context of road cars, will be brinelling, ball/roller bearings need to make full rotations, they are exceptionally weak for repeated loads without rotation, that is what plain bearings are for, but plain bearings here will come with their own issues in this application
overall a terrible trend to see such tech come into road cars, even very expensive ones, and I can bet years salary that the development budget came out of sales of golfs and passats, hence why they cost so much these days, because the "supercar" market would never pay for any of this
I didn't go through the claims in depth looking back, but yes it's actually been granted in several countries. I've seen many get granted on technical additions to claims but that also means that they are easy to get around too. Can't speak to the costs of R&D. Just thought it was an interesting mechanism I saw a bunch about with poor explanations.
Hi, could you link or name an application of this very old principle / concept that i can look up? Thank you.
@@Tenfdy no idea what it is called, but I've seen it on movie production equipment, camera rigs, science equipment, basically it is 2 offset bores inside one another, with a single bore you can move the inside bore in an orbit, with 2 you can place it anywhere you want, this audi design is using 2 angles, but the principle behind it is exactly the same
@@dsfs17987 thanks for replying. I believe you that it is used but my problem is that i dont know what to google to find at least one product.
You said in the original comment that this is nothing new. Now you say "audi design is using 2 angles, but the principle behind it is exactly the same". Which is it? Are there applications that use that design to tilt in two axis or are the designs you are talking about to position in one plane? yes both use two axis rotation but the application is different. Based on your comment it sounds like comparing "tire" to a "gearwheel" both are round and turn.
@@Tenfdy look at the F35 fighter swivel nozzle design, you'll understand that the principle is the same as in this audi patent - use 2 (or more) eccentric (not necessarily parallel) motions to cancel out unwanted geometry changes and have the main axis align directly with the vector change without orbiting
I think even the new NASAs hard spacesuit use the same principle for joint rotation, so that the suit follows the body motions directly instead of forcing the limbs to follow orbit forced by a single angled axis of rotation - if that was the design choice
I personally see no difference between the parallel version and the angled - they both solve the exact same problem, but you sound more like the audi patent lawyer ;)
Who knew..
Good take on showing isolated rotations of the parts, when other are going straight for compound movement!
However, distracting how you constantly fiddle around the mechanism, not having the housing fixed to the table and camera shot. If you want to show it from different angles, several simultaneous camera shots (like main and side views on a blueprint) would be better. My suggestion - an isometric view plus backshot of markings on the inside.
Also I think people miss how important that top-of-the-cone property is for making spherical motion with two slanted cylinders.
Thanks for the feedback. I probably won't revisit unless I do a redesign to make it smaller and actually setup motors but good advice for the future. Thanks.
Sure, das easy b'y.