Quote:
Originally Posted by Swttrt224
Big1Boom....their modified swerve is what we call a twerve....nice job guys, that's a very creative idea. i had a similar idea last year but have never been able to actually implement it. If i may ask, how is that working out for you perfomance wise?
|
Performance is quite satisfying, we are able to use crab drive and "warthog" swerve and transition between the two seamlessly. BUT, we can and do also use simple tank differential drive for rotating in place as it seems to be the best for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam N.
Surely you are running closed-loop position control for your steering motors. What type of sensor are you using on them?
|
We are using seperate PID control for both front and back steering. As for the sensor, we are using an unlimited turn potentiometer. While this does have a 20-degree dead band, we oriented it in such a way that the dead band is facing the rear of the robot. When we near the dead band, the swerve module flips orientation and reverses power so that we can move in that direction. The "flop" is extremely fast and is nearly seamless. While we would prefer to have the truly seamless feedback that an absolute optical encoder would provide, the two eight dollar a pop pots were MUCH more affordable than the 350 dollar optical encoders were. Next year we plan to utilize two pots per wheel and align them in opposition to effectively eliminate the dead band.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapalope
we had the same problem with our first swerve drives, one somewhat simple thing you can do is to move the chain and sprockets connecting the wheel axle to the upper axle to the outside of the module. As long as this does not cause your module to become wider then the diameter of the wheel it should not hit anything. This makes tensioning and replacement of this chain much easier, also it opens up more room on the inside of the module.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=swerve+module
This is our teams last swerve design, one other thing we did as far as maintenance was use hex axles and snap rings to make everything very easy to change. Our '08 bot,which used these modules,never broke in competition but it was way better than '07 when we had to get 4 people and sit for an hour to get the wheels out and replace the tread, now it only takes 1 person 30 minutes or less to replace all 4 wheels. |
After this year I think running the chain on the outside of the module will taken into consideration with high necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam N.
I think all of the wheel modules I've seen online have had their main housing either welded together or machined from solid.
Our modules are bolted together using aircraft-grade 6-32 machine screws.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32573
Don't get me wrong though, I'm a big fan of welding. It just seems to me that it would be easier to do service work on a given wheel module if it could be taken apart. Using screws to fasten the parts together does offer a serviceability advantage IMO.
I also believe that the weight of bolted housing is comparable to the weight of a welded housing - our modules weigh less than 4lbs each.
Still, the best wheel module is one that's so reliable it doesn't need to be serviced very often, or even at all! |
We have had ZERO problems with the modules themselves, the steering chain runs have been the problem children. However, thankfully we were able to identify and solve this problem after 3 days on our practice field prior to ship. PORTLAND HERE WE COME!