View Single Post
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-12-2006, 14:53
ChuckDickerson's Avatar
ChuckDickerson ChuckDickerson is offline
Mentor / Bayou & CMP Division LRI
FRC #0456 (Siege Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vicksburg, MS
Posts: 877
ChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Mecanum Suspension Movement

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Krass View Post
I avoided a split chassis in the end because I felt that attaching upper structure to it would become troublesome, given its flexibility. It's possible to integrate the split chassis into a larger, stiffer frame, but that comes with a significant weight penalty.

I think a spring is an ideal solution, but I didn't feel comfortable making assumptions about how much travel and force would be appropriate from a spring. The tennis ball and the current arrangment allow for us to quickly try different objects. With sufficient testing, I'd feel more comfortable approximating the characteristics of, say, a tennis ball with a spring.
Thanks Madison! We have no experiance with nor plans for Mecanum this season but I really think they are wonderful. I am just trying to understand some of the design issues. I can see how a split chassis could limit the upper structure and without knowing the game requirements it is probably safest to put the suspension at the individual wheel. I love the tennis ball as a low tech but effective solution. Truly K.I.S.S. at work. Thanks teaching me something new today!