Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMagicPenguin
Here on 1640 we plan to use our swerve drive again (big suprise). This year we are also going to introduce our CVT swerve to the field.
|
Do you have any of the source files for this CVT swerve design anywhere? I'd love to look at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkseer54
How about 45lbs, with a functioning control system, working pneumatic system, a compressor too big for its own good, a metal tank, and a huge excess of wires and pneumatic tubing? Just because one 8 motor octocanum weighs 90 lbs doesn't mean all of them do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-mNuGsVhQ |
That looks great! Mind if I ask what traction wheels you're using?
You're right, 45 lbs. is much more reasonable and your chassis looks both agile and powerful. I expect you'll see a lot of success on that that chassis.
But the reason I always will recommend a simple 6 or 8 wheel drop center chassis over the more complicated drive systems is that a well designed, well built, and well practiced tank drive will perform as well as something more complicated for most cases. Yes, there are situations in which it'd be really convenient to just move 6" to the left in a match. But those scenarios are not worth the time and effort that those more complicated drive systems require. And the robustness of a tank drive cannot be beaten.
In short, I think it's more important for teams to field the best robot and not the best drivetrain. Any time spent on a complicated drive system is time not spent developing other subsystems.