Quote:
Originally Posted by NWChen
My friend and I are working on a 3-wheel swerve drivebase, inspired by 3-wheel platforms from 1425/ 1640/ 16 pre-2011. The drivebase isn't intended for competitive use.
This is our first time developing a swerve drivetrain. Is it significantly more difficult to implement 2CIMs/swerve module (6CIMs total) vs. 1CIM/swerve module (3CIMs total)? |
I have not designed or built a gearbox, but I have been following a number of the threads for the past year or so, and reviewed some old ones. There are basically three classes of swerve drives as far as I have noticed.
- Drive motor below the pivot - this means that you have to limit the steering angle or use slip rings. An example is CIM-in-swerve. Here, you would be adding a bunch more weight and probably volume to the rotating module. Poor choice for dual-CIMming.
- Axial, with both drive motor and at least one reduction stage above pivot: this should be the easiest to implement a second CIM - just find a place where its pinion can engage the same gear that the other CIM's pinion engages, and provide the necessary support.
- Axial, with drive motor above pivot, but all reduction gearing below pivot: not easily viable for a dual-CIM swerve.