Chief Delphi - AM' swerve modules

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Technical Discussion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22)

- - AM' swerve modules (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77009)

Re: AM' swerve modules

I would like to bring to the attention of this thread http://www.team221.com/ which sells a full mobility system specifically designed for FRC teams, I know of at least 2 teams that used it this year. Does this violate any specific rules or is it a COTS item? Keep in mind this was used THIS YEAR in competition (as always rules change)

I would feel an AM swerve module would fall under the same category as an AM gearbox, who says I have to use a swerve module for a drive system? Maybe I want to use it for a turret or as a roller I can change the direction of.

And besides, as it stands right now you can build a robot from the current KOP with some wire strippers, some allen wrenches, some wire, and a couple lengths of chain. Arguing that it would make it so students don't learn anything is pointless, that fear, if valid, has already come true. (Im not getting into the debate of if it is valid or not)

Re: AM' swerve modules

I would think that it would be ok for AM to market a swerve box. But not a full system.

If just the box was marketed, then teams would have to still find all the other parts involved in a swerve.

1) Motors (choosing between F/B Steering, L/R Steering, Individual steering, all together steering, and so on.)
2) Sensors (Teams would NEED to find their own sensors)
etc.

Just the box would be fine, but AM would have to release the CAD's so that teams could design mounts.

For those people that say that swerve mounts have to be complex, look at our bot. We have two square lazy susans from McMaster per swerve module. (Total of 8 on the bot) That is it. No fancy plastic rollers or CNCed parts for the mount.

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirrel (Post 854168)

I've heard that Andy Baker spends a lot of time sitting around doing nothing, so this would be a great project to fill up a small portion of his free time. :)

:) Jim - it was great to finally meet you in Atlanta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Freeman (Post 854078)

So, why aren't the andymark mechanum wheels against the "spirit of the competition" but a swerve module is? After all, by using AM mechanum wheels teams learn nothing about machining, CNC usage, roller molding, etc. Same thing with the gearboxes.

Using this same logic, we might as well have all teams fabricate their own screws, since all of the students don't know how to use a lathe well enough to cut threads.

There have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of students who have used AndyMark shifter gearboxes and holonomic wheels and have been inspired. Many of them see what is available and create their own better systems. To say that these students are learning nothing is insulting.

I am definitely in favor of helping get swerve modules available to teams who do not have the engineering or fabrication resources to do so. We do not have concrete plans on doing this currently, but we are looking to help another company provide these sub-assemblies to the open market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big1boom (Post 854325)

I would think that it would be ok for AM to market a swerve box. But not a full system. If just the box was marketed, then teams would have to still find all the other parts involved in a swerve.

1) Motors (choosing between F/B Steering, L/R Steering, Individual steering, all together steering, and so on.)
2) Sensors (Teams would NEED to find their own sensors)
etc.

Just the box would be fine, but AM would have to release the CAD's so that teams could design mounts.

For those people that say that swerve mounts have to be complex, look at our bot. We have two square lazy susans from McMaster per swerve module. (Total of 8 on the bot) That is it. No fancy plastic rollers or CNCed parts for the mount.

One of the nice things about operating AndyMark is knowing that many of our parts are used outside of FIRST. We sell gearboxes and wheels and TekTrays to many places outside of the competition robotics market. To tell us what we can and cannot sell is silly and short-sighted. I think that it is wiser to suggest limitations on what is allowed on a FIRST robot as opposed to telling a privately-owned company what they can and cannot sell.

For instance, we are looking to sell fully-assembled drive bases soon. Customers outside of FIRST are asking for this, and we will sell these. Will these be legal for FIRST teams? probably not... but that is not for us to decide.

I appreciate all of the comments in this thread.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Note that the Universal Chassis system sold by my company is in fact a "kit," does require assembly and is not supplied with motors or transmissions of any sort.

Frc27, frc696 and frc910 used the chassis with great success this season!

Ironically all three teams purchased a Universal Chassis because it was similar, or identical to assemblies they already manufactured or designed, not because it was a game breaker that gave them an unfair advantage.

All feedback has been very positive to date.

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 854334)

:) Jim - it was great to finally meet you in Atlanta.

Using this same logic, we might as well have all teams fabricate their own screws, since all of the students don't know how to use a lathe well enough to cut threads.

There have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of students who have used AndyMark shifter gearboxes and holonomic wheels and have been inspired. Many of them see what is available and create their own better systems. To say that these students are learning nothing is insulting.

I am definitely in favor of helping get swerve modules available to teams who do not have the engineering or fabrication resources to do so. We do not have concrete plans on doing this currently, but we are looking to help another company provide these sub-assemblies to the open market.

One of the nice things about operating AndyMark is knowing that many of our parts are used outside of FIRST. We sell gearboxes and wheels and TekTrays to many places outside of the competition robotics market. To tell us what we can and cannot sell is silly and short-sighted. I think that it is wiser to suggest limitations on what is allowed on a FIRST robot as opposed to telling a privately-owned company what they can and cannot sell.

For instance, we are looking to sell fully-assembled drive bases soon. Customers outside of FIRST are asking for this, and we will sell these. Will these be legal for FIRST teams? probably not... but that is not for us to decide.

I appreciate all of the comments in this thread.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

Thanks Andy lol:D

I was kinda dissapointed that I dident get to meet you in Atlanta, but i got to talk to alot of other great people;)

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 854334)

It's not so insulting when you realize that my post was actually a question and not a statement.

The part of my post that you didn't quote:

Quote:

At some point you have to draw a line, what's the justification for putting it here? And what other things are prohibited by the same logic?

I didn't say it was a good thing to draw the line here, or that it should be drawn somewhere else. I fail to see how this legitimate question is insulting to anyone. In fact, I support the development of these "swerve boxes".

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 854334)

We sell gearboxes and wheels and TekTrays

Due to so many different variables when making a swerve and how there is a varying amount of complexity from one to another I don't think it would be a big deal if AM made a simple swerve module.

In regards to my quote, I've never seen this on the site before, are there a lot of other things like this on AM that are away from the normal pages of the site?

Re: AM' swerve modules

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajlapp (Post 854379)

I stand corrected, 3 teams :)

I do not believe that swerve, no matter how well built, is a game breaker. Especially if it were to be supplied as a "kit" similar to the Universal Chassis system. Most teams have more than enough brains to design a swerve system, a lot of us just do not have either the man power or the tools to do it. It isn't a learning gap, it is a ease of manufacturing gap.

Re: AM' swerve modules

Plus, as was stated before, it merely provides another part of the design process. Build your own or "settle" for what someone else has made. I only say settle because chances if AM did make a swerve module it wouldn't fit the needs of everyone who wanted swerve. Different gear ratios, different dimensions, and other such things. So you have to decide if you want to design your own module to perfectly match your criteria, or go with something that doesn't match perfectly, but get's the job done, and saves you time.

It doesn't remove anything from the design process, it just adds another question.

Re: AM' swerve modules

I for one would find it very useful if AM or another company sold some Swerve modules or components thereof. We purchased the 8" mechanum wheels a couple of years ago and never used them in competition, but there are an important part of my class and robotics curriculum. Currently we building our third robot using those wheels and has nothing to do with a competition robot. They have provided my students with excellent learning opportunities since we lack the machining resources to make our own. The same would be true of the swerve modules. They would provide an excellent opportunity for my students to learn about that type of system whether or not it was used for a competition.