Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_L
Form factor as in why did you do the 221 style swerve instead of the Aren Hill style swerve?
As evidenced by the post above, I'm not too much of a fan of the 221 form factor anymore - it used to be the best method, but ever since Aren had decided that moving sideways wasn't a waste of time I think his form factor is a much better solution. I'd look into that style if you can. |
Aren has a long, long history of moving sideways.
The 221 form factor is still a reasonable choice - there's nothing WRONG with it, but the concept design Aren posted in... 2014? does reduce part count, module height, etc.
With the way he is transferring power from outside the module via a belt and tucking the CIM into the chassis, there would be extra weight in the power transfer stage that would need to be added from the coaxial input to the offset output, which probably cancels out the extra weight of the bevel intermediate shaft. You also have to source a bevel gear for the output whereas you can use unmodified COTS bevel gears from Vex for this design. It's not really a huge disadvantage or anything to use this style of module.
Really the main argument against the 221 style module design is that you can just go buy a 221 module if you want to use it. If you're building your own and it's similar to a COTS product, it's not the most efficient use of resources.
Great design! I like the chassis design and the sheet metal work.