Quote:
Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14
I would assume 1126 can attest to that? I loved being on your alliance at FLR in 2012 but watching you try and drive up onto a bridge was at times quite painful.
|
Exactly...
In 2012, when 1126 tried Swerve drive out, it was significantly less than stunning. The development cycle was much shorter than it should have been, spanning about the Fall prior to the 2012 season. The prototype, while more or less functional, was definitely not field ready. It would still suffer technical malfunctions and the software control was incomplete. This ended up hurting an otherwise decent robot, making consistent driving a challenge and, of course, those bridges were a hurdle (though that was also a result of the robot being top heavy).
While I presume the mileage may vary for most teams, I would probably target a satisfactory swerve drive at having a 2 year development time:
-Begin development over the summer following a given season
-Span that through the Summer and Fall (though development will probably slow down in the Fall as the team starts to focus on season preparation) -----Don't use it in the coming game
-Resume development in the following Summer
-Enter your prototype Swerve into an off-season event
-Refine based on off-season performance
-Determine if you are satisfied with putting that Swerve drive on the field. If not, repeat for another Summer.
That's just my ball park. Given the complexity of Swerve, I would probably not be comfortable with less than that. Higher resource or more well staffed teams who can iterate their physical design more quickly will probably have their development cycle cut down significant as opposed to a team such as mine who doesn't have significant resources.
Even after that initial development cycle to even get the Swerve on the field, it's important to keep iterating it. Reducing weight, reducing cost, augmenting reliability, simplicity and robustness are important as it allows your Swerve drive to keep a competitive edge. Equally as important as the design of the physical aspect, refinement of programming is just as important, to keep the Swerve drive driving properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0
Here's a reason why mecanum drives get picked on It's hard to scout defensive potential well. And mecanum wheels are a proxy for being bad at defense.
|
The only reason I can see not picking Mecanum for a third robot is if the team is trying to push with them. If a team builds a robot on Mecanum wheels and is pushing as part of their strategy, then I really wouldn't want them for a third robot. While most people equate "defense" to "pushing", to assume that pushing is the only way to play defense is a huge error. While yes, pushing is the most obvious way to play defense, a robot on Mecanum wheels with a creative driver and strategy can easily create traffic for any robot. While they won't be a mobile wall, it's still defense. It is more work on the scouting end, but it can be a difference maker. Especially since most teams at regionals who end of being picked as a defensive robot don't really have all-star drive trains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0
Now to the original question, mecanums or swerve: Why not holonomic?
|
I've actually wanted to experiment with Holonomic for a while now. I think it's never really involved in these discussions because it's a fairly forgettable drive system. It doesn't really get any exposure because there are few FRC teams with Holonomic drive in the spotlight. I remember 1501 was on Kiwi Drive (the 3-wheel Holonomic variant) in 2010, and I remember seeing one team use it in 2011, but I don't think I've seen one since, though I'm sure there have been some.