Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

Our team is looking at different swerve variations and considering trying one in the off season.

Ether was nice enough to do the derivations for equations and wheel speeds and post them in an excel format for unicorn drives, and straight up "crab" where all the modules are linked is simple to program.

Has anyone performed a similar variation for a paired-module swerve where 2 have 2 sets of modules, when each set has linked steering and drive?

To more explicit, picture 4 modules where the left side modules are turned and driven together, and the right side modules are turned and driven together.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

190 did this in 2009. It's basically tank that can strafe and gave us pretty good mobility for the motor choices we had that year.

Nowadays, with the amount of motors you can pick from, the benefits of full swerve outweigh the drawbacks.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

1983 also did this in 2009. Ty is right, with the amount of similar motors a full swerve would be the way to go if you are confident you can build it and control it.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I've seen veteran teams sit idle for matches because of their swerve drives, for trivial reasons (e.g. the wheels weren't properly aligned at the start of the match).

At any rate, every game deserves thorough evaluation on the pros and cons of each drive train, because ultimately propellers will rule when it's a water game.
:p

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

I think his point was that if you have the capability to build a functional swerve drive, would there be an advantage do pairing modules together in pairs, rather than all together, or all independent, and how to implement this. In the high majority of cases I doubt running modules in pairs instead of independently would cause a team's robot to sit idle in a match. That would be more due to the overall fact that the team wasn't able to get swerve running properly in general.

I cannot speak to what the pros and cons of running them in pairs would be. We ran all 4 of our modules independently this year. Off the top of my head the only advantage I can see to pairing instead of all independent is using two less motors, but at this point with the number of motors available and the weight that teams have been able to get their swerve drives down to, that doesn't seem like a huge plus.

-Nick

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

I agree with others.

Full independant is mechanically easier and it lets your 4 corners exist in isolation from each other.

Also, it's trivially heavier as you're not linking power transmission over long distance, so you eliminate all that weight (but do add two motors at .5 lbs each + gearing).

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

Some benefits of pairing swerve modules would be:
* Ability to drive (2) swerves with (3) CIMS
* Easier to add gear shift

But, what kind of drive action/control are you seeking: Crab or Snake? Either could be accomplished through pairing, but not both together.

For example of crab & snake, see:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2400
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2401

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

This is one of the reasons we were considering looking at two pairs...we wanted to see about getting 6 CIMS to power the 4 wheels.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

Yep, read that in a different context. Thanks for shining a different light on it.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

Why do you want 6 cims for a swerve drive? It seems a bit over kill when a swerve is best at out maneuvering not out pushing/running.
You could try a 3 wheel 6 cim having the best out of both worlds.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

6 CIM drives really aren't about pushing harder; they don't, at least not with shifters. They're about accelerating better when geared for a high speed at full weight. A swerve that accelerates more slowly than the standard tank drive would be less agile - this would be bad for outmanuvering.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

6 cims is not for pushing, because the 120a breaker basically limits your torque, even if it delays a few seconds. Your wheels will lift before that happens at lower speeds (~7fps IIRC). It does, however, give you much better acceleration.
The main problem with a 6 cim swerve is that you lose all your cims that could go to a manipulator. Plus, you either have to do a central gearbox or go with a 6-module swerve.
Using centralized gearboxes saves weight (chain weighs very little as a matter of fact) but at the cost of not being able to do complex maneuvers. For programming purposes, a simple crab would work better in my opinion, but mechanically it will be hell to line them up due to chain spacing.

The chain for crabs also has to be designed around for anything that goes above the chassis. The high number of chains also can lead to faster breaks, so using #35 chain could be an advantage maintanence wise.
Chain weight is 0.087lbs for #25, 1.8lbs for #35 per foot.

One way to line up swerve modules is to stretch a piece of surgical tubing between the end of one wheel's axle to the end of another and tie it off there. That keeps both wheel facing forwards. Then you calibrate at 0, and remove the tubing.

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

How do you get "much better acceleration" if you don't have more torque?

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

This. Without more torque, then there is no reason why your wheel spin-up would be decreased, thus helping your acceleration. What's your reasoning behnd saying you do not get more torque?

I think some teams on Einstein this season would have disagreed with you.

-Nick

Re: Coaxial Swerve Derivation with Paired Modules
 

I think the reason a 6 cim drive gives you more acceleration is because it spikes the current initially. I'm not 100% sure why it is faster at accelerating (it definitely is though, one of parents did some calculations) but that would be my guess.
It won't help in a pushing match because the current spike will just kill you, because the current will not decrease over time like when you start driving. Insert blown breaker here.
The reason I say torque is limited is because torque is directly related to current on a motor. Because we have (usually) a maximum 120a-180a going to all cims, and the stall current on each cim is 133a, you are not getting more torque. The delayed blow on the breaker will allow the current to spike for all the cims, giving you a torque boost with more cims, but it can't hold those current levels for long. So the max torque cap is pretty much the same if you don't want to blow breakers.

Torque is also inversely proportional to speed in electric motors, so having 6 cims divvy up a given amount of current (torque) will increase their speed as well compared to 4 cims.

Let me rephrase what I said about manipulators:
6-cim drivetrains are fine. You are still left with many motors for doing all kinds of stuff on the robot. However, when you have a bunch of turning motors too (which you will want, crab or swerve) then you end up being left with some wimpier motors. On a single centralized turning gearbox, it might not be a problem, but if you want to turn the modules quickly then you would want more than 1 turning motor there.

Just my opinion of course. 6 cim swerves have been done in the past, and have done beautifully. However, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what you pick as long as it's excecuted well and you get driver practice. Focus more on the little picture.