View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-01-2003, 09:09
FotoPlasma FotoPlasma is offline
\: |
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,900
FotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond reputeFotoPlasma has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to FotoPlasma
Quote:
Originally posted by Al Skierkiewicz
They were essentially small wheels mounted at the outer circumference of a larger wheel and at right angles to the driven axis. When driving the smaller wheels didn't move but when turning they did.
This sounds like the most popular thoughts of a holonomic system, despite the fact that the amount of controllable degrees of freedom is not equal the the total amount of degrees of freedom (seeing as how you can be forced to strafe, and it's not controlled, as explained in a second). I believe I know what you're saying, and this sketch might be close.

It seems to me that if you were to integrate these omni-wheels (as they're commonly referred to) into a 4-wheel-drive (two sets of two chain-driven wheels), without the wheel assemblies themselves turning (thinking of the Wildstang 2002 robot), then you can easilly fall victim to being pushed perpendicular to your wheelbase, whereas a team without such a system would be much less susceptible to such a maneuver.

However, such a situation makes more than a few assumptions about next season's game, so much of this post can be disregarded.
__________________
I played hacky sack with Andy Baker.

2001-2004: Team 258, The Sea Dawgs
2005: Team 1693, The Robo Lobos

Last edited by FotoPlasma : 02-01-2003 at 09:14.