6 in 60 Initial 3D Models
All things Trucktor!
Quick connect wheels utilized on the axles
Link to Quick connect Wheels http://opensourceecology.org/w/index.php?title=Quick_Connect_Wheels&action=submit
Start with Wikispeed Frame from Wikispeed SGT01 page:
(image is STEP care of VariCAD Viewer in Ubuntu Linux)
Add a 50 hp Power Cube by Tom Griffing - to modify Wikispeed design to flexible hydraulic power.
Modify wheel drive for hydraulic motor drive to go with hydraulic power unit.
Set up shop at Local Motors shop in Arizona. Fund via Kauffman Foundation to result in a minimum viable product in 3 months.
From Prototype I:
Download file in Sketchup format - File:Iron1.skp
to Prototype III as a 1 day build possibility:
(see Scalable Iron Worker page for details and Gary Log for progress.
From OpenSourceCitizen on MicroTrac
Given the current OSE architecture-path and the existing Lifetrac's ability to lift: I'd suggest trying to forego lifting capacity(loader arms) and direct it more toward a BCS-Brand type tiller design- compact as possible for dragging or pushing ground engagement tools that don't need lifting or are easily lifted(height/depth adjusted) with a simple leverage bar instead of cumbersome hydraulic rams. This suggestion is based on my years of experience using, studying and designing these three classes of equipment(skidsteer, Miniskidsteer, Two-wheel walk-behind), as well as a huge cultural shift to self-sufficiency and urban gardening. I believe there is ALOT more demand for the walk-behind urban-garden tiller/powered wheelbarrow. Its a good bootstrap product and it gets people converted over to a utilitarian lifestyle and out of the rat-race. Four wheels can still be used, or two, three, tracks or two + casters.
Future revisions of the Lifetrac can assess its range of scalability and option of providing a rear riding platform instead of the operator having to fit inside of it.
Yes! Good notions. A mower/hydraulic power cube can go viral. -Marcin
From OpenSourceCitizen on Car
Hydraulic wheel motors a bad choice? There is a reason that there are no hydraulic driven cars and very few/expensive add-on hydraulic drive systems for big trucks(which only supplement the direct drive). The efficiency losses and heat build up is enormous with even expensive($3-7k each) closed-circuit hydraulic motors(radial-piston) & pumps(axial-piston) when used in this type of application as compared to direct-mechanical drive. This is even more magnified when trying to use wheel motors(instead of motors powering the wheels thru a transmission or even just a standard axle differential gear), the speed and torque range is physics-impossible, especially with cheap motors/pumps. The durability and versatility of hydraulics over direct-mechanical drive for low-speed/high-torque, clutch-intensive applications does not carry-over to the physics of the car-application. There are also control/biasing/differential issues with using multiple wheel motors as experienced on the Lifetrac but amplified to an unsafe level at 30+ mph. More viable would be to make the powercube capable of both hydraulic and shaft power output and not use hydraulics for the car application. The hydraulic pump could remain on the powercube on the opposite side of the crankshaft or it could be made to be quick attach for being swapped with the shaft connection. This is also useful for virtually all GVCS applications where high shaft speeds are required. It makes the build cost lower and reliability higher. This is industry standard for many applications like tree chippers that are direct-drive off one side of the engine for the high-speed grinder and have a hydraulic motor mounted on the other side for the feeder motor.
Also see: Local Motors