Thread: Swerve Gear Box
View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-27-2011, 04:50 PM
Joe G.'s Avatar
Joe G. Joe G. is online now
Taking a few years (mostly) off
AKA: Josepher
no team (Formerly 1687, 5400)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 1,436
Joe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Joe G.
Re: Swerve Gear Box

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidthefat View Post
Wouldn't that require more torque to rotate the gearbox because adding a motor onto the gearbox makes it much more massive.
Module rotational inertia is pretty trivial compared to frictional resistance to rotation. The larger disadvantages of the self-contained approach include physical size, difficulty in adding shifting capabilities if they are desired, and limits to the module's rotation generated by the motor's wires. But none of these come close to making this design unworkable, and they've been used on many fantastic swerve designs, as Andrew mentioned.
__________________
FIRST is not about doing what you can with what you know. It is about doing what you thought impossible, with what you were inspired to become.

2007-2010: Student, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2012-2014: Technical Mentor, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2015-2016: Lead Mentor, FRC 5400, Team WARP
2016-???: Volunteer and freelance mentor-for-hire