Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave McLaughlin
We asked ourselves the same question during brainstorming. Our answer is yes. We believe the ability to employ "thrust vectoring" (there is your arbitrary aviation connection of the day) will allow us to maneuver better than a differential drive. While we may not spend all match "strafing," the ability to use transverse friction for braking by orienting the wheels perpendicular to the direction of motion, and put all of our power into turning, rotating or driving makes us believe a swerve is worth the turmoil that usually comes with building one.
|
This reasoning also drove our team to go with a steering chassis as well. (
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32573?) We agreed that we wanted a chassis that "puts all of its energy in the direction we want to go." "Thrust Vectoring" is a good way of putting it.
Turning the front and back sets of wheels independently will deliver car-like steering (Front wheels turn +X degrees, rear wheels turn -X degrees). Orienting all the wheels the same way will deliver crab-like motion. Although this probably means we'll be "orbiting our trailer," we sill would like this functionality so we can escape from robot jams and possibly align our robot with the fueling station and outpost more accurately.
I'm really anxious to see pictures of the skunk module to see how it compares with our design. I think it's cool that a lot of teams arrived at this common design solution for this brain-scratching problem of a simulated lunar gravity.