Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
For what "benefit"?
Before people start going off and design new for the sake of new, they should evaluate what a well designed full treaded drop center 6wd can do. There is a reason 60 started doing it, 254/968 always does, and we always love to copy it.
|
If what I've suggested is "new for the sake of new" implementation of 6WD/WCD is "a solution searching for more problems". I made the benefit pretty clear, but perhaps a more in-depth explanation is required. In short, the benefit to raising the middle wheel on the fly is to maintain a level of functionality while removing the derived assumptions realized by a more advanced/coupled design. Indeed, I did not even imply those assumptions, but then again no one ever really talks about them.
Reduce the team in question to an average team who seeks to maintain most of the same capabilities as the 'best' 6WD while also maintaining other requirements they've set forth for their robot. Perhaps 4-6 motors and a COTS shifting transmission on the drive train is deemed a lower priority than having extra power/weight for other robot subsystems for a team. To be honest, this is a very reasonable assumption for any team.
If the extra power/weight in the team's manipulators were to pay off in on-field success, many other teams would come to defend them.
Thus the team would be subject to defense via turning due to its gearing choices and wheel base when it competes against another robot with more power/capability in the drive train. Adding a potential design to raise the middle wheel using simple pneumatics in order to remove the disadvantage may prove to be a superior design for that team's overall robot depending on their time, available resources and funding.