
11-01-2010, 13:46
|
|
Registered User
AKA: Matt Anderson
 FRC #0948 (Newport Robotics Group: NRG (pronounced eNeRGy))
Team Role: Programmer
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 62
|
|
|
Re: Effective Drive Base
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustinjeremy2k
I'd like to encourage teams to draw lots of diagrams, mock up rolling chassis, and think about the assumptions you are making before designing a "drive base".
Basics
4WD skid - simple, effective, stable climber. If it's designed to stand a chance in a pushing contest, it won't be very maneuverable.
6WD skid / tank tread - a bit heavier, more moving parts, NOT a very stable climber, much more maneuverable, still good at pushing (Usually the best "compromise" chassis, but not this year).
Omni / Holonomic - very versatile, simple, maneuverable, but you're on roller skates, and can't climb well (or at all).
Crab / Swerve - similar to above but with superior traction, superior handling, more complex, many moving parts, not likely to be a good climber. Does not (usually) rotate the chassis efficiently which could lead to more complex (multi-sided) game mechanisms.
I think the best drive systems will be some sort of hybrid between two of the basics. I would NOT use a tread or a crab to climb... good luck to those who try it! (And do you really need to climb anyway?) If you do, you might want to bring a big tool box to the competitions!
Enjoy!
|
Why would a tank tread design do poorly while climbing those bumps? I've heard the exact opposite: that tanks are great at it, and that they *almost* never break. I'm on an iPhone, so I can't link to YouTube, but search up the Ripsaw MS1 made by Howe and Howe Tech (yeah, the ones from discovery channel).
|