Quote:
Originally Posted by Ether
Just to be clear: The point James was making is that your testing will not be representative of the fine control you could get by reducing the speed via gearing.
|
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukedude43
Will come back and edit so this makes sense
Realized I forgot to add other important info but the gist of it is 3d printed preliminary pods and having the gears for this gearing change in shop
|
I can appreciate that you have a hard deadline and you want to prove the drive works before then.
However, consider this: you can make the gearing change, the drive is sluggish and does not perform well when you demo it, but by gosh it never gets hung up on the ramp (which is the whole reason to change gearing, right?) Or, you can leave in a more robust gear ratio, and show that the drive accelerates well, is very controllable, and behaves nicely; and though the gears might contact the playing field under certain rare circumstances, you can solve that problem by making any of the changes mentioned in this thread.
If you're going to argue for swerve drive, which of those situations gives you a firmer position to argue from?
Edit: In the spirit of full disclosure, my team is setting up a chassis with a free speed of around 14 ft/s. We made this decision based upon easily available gear ratios, easily available wheels, and ability to neatly integrate it into our chassis. We are, however, planning on using 4 CIMs and 4 mini-CIMs, which will help offset the losses in acceleration and low-speed control at the expense of weight.