View Single Post
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-05-2011, 02:35
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,074
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: chassis ideas swerve

Quote:
Originally Posted by staplemonx View Post
I really liked how 1717 drove this year. So I am trying to improve on the chasis I saw this year with some guess work since i didn't get to really dive in and get to know it. pnuematic super shifter chain linked to drive shafts and window motor chain linked to drive collar. Electrical bay on the botom. 1/8 aluminum rivitied together. Assum the total chassis weight is 25lbs with rivits.

Is this about right?

Would you use banenot motors instead of window motors for steering?

Is the super shifter gear box over kill?

How much pushing power would this have?

How fast would this be with 2 or 4 cims?
JJ, it was nice meeting you in St Louis.


Both motors work for steering. Really I would suggest using the window motors if only because we have a very limited amount of high power motors (CIM, FP, BB) and using 6 of them in the drive train may not be the best use of those resources.

I have only ever seen 1 shifting swerve drive and that was from 118. Check for their 2007 video if I recall. Aside from acceleration I don't really see a point in doing that. Swerve systems are more mobile than many other platforms. This allows them to drive around obstacles rather than pushing through. Unfortunately I don't see many teams using them this way.

As for how fast it would be, perhaps take a peek at JVN's mechanical design calculator.


Now, the part you didn't ask for... If this was just a thought experiment then cool. From what Akash has told me about 3553's resources, and from my general opinions of most teams, doing a swerve drive isn't the best option in my opinion. I would feel that mastering a 6wd style base would be a very good use of time and resources. Train some phenomenal drivers and make it bullet proof. The key to a successful season is a robust and reliable drive system. Additionally, swerve systems require massive allocation of resources including driver practice (meaning you need 2 bots) and programming. The software for a swerve system is difficult and, if done wrong, can result in your system being unusable or not performing to your expectations.

The above being said, if you decide to go this route I will make two suggestions:

Prototype in Vex/FTC/Any Other Small Scale. - I cannot stress this. It will save thousands of dollars and most of the concepts will apply at the large scale.

Build two robots. - Driver practice is key with swerve, you can't just point a direction and go, there is a delay.

If you need any help (I'm not an engineer, just a programmer) Akash has all my contact info. Hope to see 3553 out on the field next year.
__________________




.