View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-08-2010, 19:05
Clem1640's Avatar
Clem1640 Clem1640 is offline
Head Mentor
AKA: Clem McKown
FRC #1640 (Sab-BOT-age)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Downingtown PA
Posts: 249
Clem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond reputeClem1640 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: paper: Drive-Train (Drag-Race) Model

So you would want to see time as a function of x (distance traveled) and G (gear reduction)? This is certainly do-able.

One problem with eq. 32, however, is that it assumes that the wheels maintain traction. The numerical calculations which generate the numbers and curves in the worksheet does not make this assumption. I used equations 28 and 32 to check the performance of the numerical solution (I can force wheel slip to FALSE to override the wheel slip check). The time step selected is based on running the comparison between numerical and analytical (eq 28 & 32) solutions side-by-side. When they yeild the same results, the time step is small enough.

Regarding drive-train frictional losses; after thinking about this further, I believe that these should be a per-robot value, whereas I've made it a per-motor value. This is an easy fix. When making this change and reducing number of CIMS, maximum speed now drops:
4 CIMS -- 9.77 ft/s
3 CIMS -- 9.31 ft/s
2 CIMS -- 8.38 ft/s
1 CIM --- 5.50 ft/s

At this point, the actual value of the drive-train frictional loss is just a SWAG (at best).
__________________


Clem McKown
Head Mentor - FRC 1640 & FTC 7314
Chairman - Downingtown Area Robotics
Reply With Quote