![]() |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Hey everyone, I'm really sorry for what this turned into. It wasn't my intention to seem like I'm trolling you guys. I'm completely new to this community; I made an account just to post the render. I wasn't even aware that it was so populated here at this time of year... Thankfully, Akash Rastogi found me on facebook and explained why this post was so controversial. Again, I didn't really know how things worked here at CD until Akash and others who posted here cleared it up for me.
I was hesitant to post the actual thing because we wanted it to be a surprise during the season, if the game even accommodates this drive, that is... But anyway, here's something to clear things up. Sorry about all this. I hope you guys can forgive me! ![]() |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
What advantage does this have over swerve?
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
First off, thank you!
Second off, sweet CAD! Third, questions/constructive criticism (see how we can do that now? :p ) It appears that there is nothing that retains the ball vertically other than the robot's weight. I can assure you that even with a level field, you'll want to address this. The robot can be lifted up in collisions (not to mention carrying it on and off the field). If this is simply not yet modeled, disregard this comment. What kind of bearings will you be using to support module rotation? What kind of traction material will you use on the ball, and ball/roller interface? Fears of slip/low traction have always deterred me from ball drive. The idea of shifting roller sizes on a ball drive for shifting is very cool, though I agree that as modeled, I don't see the advantage over a swerve with traditional dog sifters. I feel like this may have the potential to be more compact though, maybe by shifting the CIM down low, behind the ball. If there's an advantage I'm missing, please enlighten me though! The initial module you posted looked like it had a lot of promise as a traditional wheel-switching shifting design. While not totally original, your design work was sound and compact. Maybe pursue this as well. |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
Unfortunately I have to hit the sack because I have to wake up early tomorrow, but I'll back tomorrow to talk about the mechanism... |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
How big each of the modules, and how many of these modules are you planing to have, 3 or 4? Do you think that there will be enough room for the full size of the swerves plus their turning motors/gears/belts? Another possibility is to use a mouseball kind of thing with omnis, this would also allow for strafing.
![]() Also why are the wheels two different sizes? |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
From the 2012 Manual, section 4.1.4. Quote:
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
The Technokats did a ball drive in 2003, and I think Andy Baker went on to patent the idea. There's a thread on it somewhere around here.
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
|
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Quote:
As awesome as this is, I would be interested in a breakdown of the pros/cons of choosing something like this versus a well-implemented swerve (a la 1717, 973, etc.). I'm not seeing any benefits, but I have only a cursory understanding of drivetrains at the moment. |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
Let me start by saying that I have also spoke to Daniel about etiquette on the forms and am happy to see his attempt at rectifying the situation. With that being said this design is by no means a finished product. We are still hard at work picking out all the little details so that we can have a smooth running drive-train for this year. In addition to that, we are not yet certain if this will even be the drive-train system that we will be using for this years game, considering we know very little to nothing about what it really is. Finally, as much as I did not want to disclose so much detail on the design we have so far this early on I suppose the design is now up for discussion. The other half of the magic is in the programming anyways ;) So have at it!!!
I'm excited to see everyone at kick-off, see you then! |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
I'll try to limit it to 5 questions:
1. What's the advantage of this versus standard swerve? 2. What language are you programming in, and how far have you gotten? 3. What cylinder are you using, and how is it mounted? What's the normal force between the rollers and the ball, and what're the CoFs? 4. What's the total module weight and how does the chassis interface work? 5. What experience will you have with this by kickoff? As it stands, I have to echo R.C.'s comment. I've known--and have been--a first-year swerve team. In all honesty, it looks like you're setting yourself and your alliances up for trouble jumping in on January 5th. Good luck either way, though. |
Re: Be afraid... Be VERY Afraid
This past summer I revived team 45's ball drive and it has seemingly lack-luster results. While it is much simpler than your current design it still doesn't perform as well as some swerve drives I've seen and driven. If you can get it working more power to you. If you want, PM me and I can send you more pictures of our 2003 ball drive robot and give you a good list of pros and cons.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:37. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi