Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

Recently, I've been looking into omnidirectional drive systems (as defined in the whitepapers by Ian Mackenzie). It seems that my team is leaning toward prototyping a crab/swerve drive for next year.

There seems to be disagreement in terminology in this area, as some consider swerve as a subset of crab and vice versa. As clarification, I consider crab drive to steer all 4 wheels dependently, keeping them all at same angle (often by running one chain around the whole thing). I consider swerve to be a case where either all four wheels turn independently of each other or when two pairs of whells turn independently of the other pair.

As this has come around, I have a few questions:

1) On a 2+2 Configuration, is it usually arranged front/back, left/right, or does it really not matter?
2) Are there advantages in terms of performance of a crab as compared to a swerve and vice versa (except weight and complexity of building and programming)?

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

Well I mean, through code, you can make a 2+2 function the same as a 4 wheel dependent steering system

Just remember, if you're using a 4 wheel dependent system, your robot will always maintain the same orientation wrt the field.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

That is not quite true is it? I mean, you can still drive the cim's on different victors and could possibly have a 4wd?

-Vivek

p.s. I think our team is going to prototype a swerve this summer too.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

While it is true that a 2+2 can function as a 4 wheel, this is made with the assumption that your sensors are reading somewhat accurately (although that would probable be somewhat reasonable) otherwise you might find your wheels at different angles.

Also, while a 4 wheel dependent may maintain orientation on the field by itself (assuming that the motors run correctly), if one happens to be umm... pushed, the orientation may be messed up. However, I suppose it would work to do a crab with a turret to compensate for this.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

In response to your first question, if you drive the front and back seperately you could turn on a point like a wide 4 whel drive would. If you turn the front and back wheels seperately, you can simulate car-type steering. An added bonus sf a 2 + 2 is that one pair of wheels can be turned perpendicular to the other, so you can park.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

In any case, 1075 tried a 2+2 configuration swerve drive in 2006, and it was a NIGHTMARE. We broke pots, we spent forever trying to code it, and at the end of the day, it wasnt very effective. I would sooner spend the time on a Holonomic/Mecanum drivetrain.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

Team 1625's swerve drive this year has 4 wheel dependent steering, however the front and back sets of wheels are powered separately, 2 cims for the front, 2 cims for the back, through AM transmissions. For our first 2 regionals, if we found ourselves off orientation with the field, we'd have to stop, put it in tank drive (press a button, wheels turned sideways), and slowly turn to reorient. During our 2nd regional, for our 3rd regional, we developed "drift buttons" these buttons would cut power to either the front or the back gearbox so that we could reorient on the fly. It worked amazingly well once our drivers got used to the idea. There's just something cool about watching your bot come around the back corner off kilter and gradually straighten out on the fly to come into your homezone straight away.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

You also have to factor in how your wheels are powered. Some teams (ie 118) power all four wheels together (chains are run from a single transmission to all four wheels). Some teams (ie 111, at least in 2007, haven't seen their 08 bot in person) power each wheel individually. Some teams (ie 1625) power the wheels in sets of 2.
There are many different ways to create a swerve system, and each has different methods to rotate. Some depend on changing the powers of wheels to rotate (like a tank drive), others depend on re-orienting the wheels (similar to Akerman steering). Others cannot (such as 118) rotate at all, and use a turreted manipulator to compensate.
If you run vector calculations you can figure out what forces you need to make your robot rotate, and you can create a system to produce those forces.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

I'm with Sean here. There are many different types of swerve/crab drive.

Methods of driving and turning the wheels (non-split or split):
-Coaxial--the same axle used for turning the wheel assembly also has an axle to power the wheel (118, 148)
-Independent--each wheel has its own motor, no matter what is used to turn the assembly (16)

Then you get the other tricks--how to turn the wheel assemblies.
-Independent--each assembly has its own motor for turning. I believe 16 did this in 2006 with their three-wheel swerve.
-All together--often used with coaxial swerve. The true swerve drive; you can't turn your robot (well, you could, but it would need some interesting drive software) so you need a turret if you are going to need to score at other angles. (118, 148)
-Half-and-half--two turning motors, one per side/end (depending on setup). (111)

Then you get into some more interesting setups. Team 1565 had a cool one this year--it's not a true swerve, but it almost acts like one set up to only go at right angles when turning.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

basically it comes down to do you want to be able to translate and rotate simultaneously or can those be seperate?

answer that question and it will narrow your field of what you need and how complex you must get....

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

With a 4WD independent swerve, the software is A LOT harder. Even with a well tuned PID, and good control logic, the robot will still tend to drift, but it is mroe maneuverable than any form of crab (with the exception of 111's implementation).

The theory behind 4WD independent swerve is usually rotation. The robot always rotates about a point somewhere in space. If the point is "infinitely" far away, the robot goes straight.

When you use all 4 wheels linked, you can translate around the field just fine (118 style) but you cannot turn with ease.

I don't know if it's better to link left/right or front/back, but I know 111 links diagonals. By using drop-down casters in front, they can have the ability to have the maneuverability of a full-swerve system.

We use a 4 wheel independently steered system. It takes a lot of work to do, but it's very fun and maneuverable. Unfortunately, these systems are rather heavy and motor-greedy. We use our 6 most powerful motors (4x CIM, 2x FP) and the two globes on the drive. It's a lot of powerful motors to lose, but it's definitely worth it.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

that means one motor spins them all, they are mechanically synchronized, i case anyone was wondering.

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

Is there a difference in pairing the wheels as left/right rather than front/back?

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

pairing for the actual drive of them? or for steering

We did front and back for the actual drive, so it was easier to do "tank mode" efficiency wise.

but steering wise that depends on what you want the front of your bot to be
skinny ways or wide ways. With dual steering motors you can setup your bot to drive like a car or quadrasteer

Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?
 

A 2+2 drive with the front/back pairing cannot go sideways and turn at the same time (unless you independently power the wheels and let them skid, sort of defeating the point). It can go forwards/backwards and turn, or strafe.

A 2+2 drive with the left/right pairing cannot go forwards/backwards and turn at the same time. It can strafe and turn, or go forwards/backwards.

Pairing the front and back sets of wheels is therefore usually the more intuitive option.