Quote:
Originally Posted by tim-tim
I think what he was trying to say is that when turning we (The RoboBees) were always on the same set of wheels. We knew exactly what axis the robot would turn about.
However, if the CG of the robot is close enough to center that enables the teetering you know longer have this luxury. The acceleration at the beginning of the turn and throughout could switch which axis you rotate about. Meaning it could be between the front and center wheels, or the rear and center wheels. We knew that every turn would be about a central point with almost no variation.
It is like have a 4WD robot with a wheelie bar with powered wheels.
Again, the application should drive the design. This is just another option to keep in mind.
|
I might be misunderstanding the conversation, but I'm pretty sure your teammate was talking about supernerds(op) drivetrain. But as for your design, if I understand it correctly, having the CG in the back of the robot is critical since your drivetrain is designed to not teter-totter and be able to interact with the field in ways a standard 6wd drop center can't. I commend you for trying something different, I think your drivetrain has pros and cons when compared to a traditional 6wd drop center, and I love that you were able to boost your ability to traverse field elements with out the standard approach of just making your wheels bigger.