Quote:
Originally Posted by squirrel
General answer: A set of mecanum wheels is not a "full mobility system". A set of swerve modules could be, or not, depending on how complete they are. A gearbox is not.
Using the examples in the rule is probably a reasonable way to evaluate it.
|
I can pretty well guarantee that a set of swerve modules isn't going to be moving anything without a frame attached to them and motors and gearboxes to spin them. I'd say under the current wording individual swerve modules would be permissible, especially if the wheels themselves are not included. (which I wouldn't expect them to be.)
As for rather it's in the spirit of FIRST I say it really just depends on the team. Some teams will have the resources to build a swerve drive and others will not. An Andy-Mark solution would not be the best choice for everyone anyways, so there would be plenty of teams building their own swerve drives. In fact I would hazard a guess that most teams that currently build swerve would keep building their own since they have it pretty much down pat.
Currently you can basically buy all of the components you need from AM to build a robot without doing any machining.(Wheels, gear boxes, and kit frame.) So I don't see the harm in adding a swerve module. In fact, I can see the argument being made that having such a thing available could be better for creativity and the design process. It adds another area of thinking into design. "Do I invest the time and effort into designing and build a subsystem to my exact specifications, or do I spend money, save time, and attempt to use an off the shelf product not specifically designed for my machine?"
Whether it would be economically feasible for AM to do it is a whole other story. Can't imagine swerve modules would be cheap to produce.