|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mechanum Gear Ratio Recommendations
We've always just gone direct drive straight from the tough box (12:1) with no problems.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mechanum Gear Ratio Recommendations
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I guess I need to order some larger sprockets for the wheels (we only have 26 tooth or smaller). We really want to use the CIMple Box due to its lower weight. With the 4.8:1 GR out of the box and a 12 tooth driver sprocket, I need to get a 28 to 30 tooth sprocket at the wheels to get close to the 12:1 GR.
By the way, how was it to strafe sideways at the 12:1 GR? Did it still perform pretty well? |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mechanum Gear Ratio Recommendations
Here's what 12:1 banebots direct drive to 8" AM mecanums looks like.
http://www.youtube.com/dtengineering#p/u/1/gyn9e0cT3-A Heck... that thing even picks up tubes. Add a minibot and you're good to go. Jason P.S. If we rebuilt that machine all over again, I'd be tempted to consider the 16:1... the 12:1 had lots of speed, but I think the 16:1 would offer better acelleration and more precise control. I'd also use the Jaguar speed controllers to implement closed-loop speed control on the controller so you can take the PID loops and encoder reading out of the programming process. Not that it is hard to do that in labview... but back in the PIC days you actually had to have students who knew how to program in order to get 4 PID loops running! With labview and/or the jags, you just set your coefficients and go back to building the minibot. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mechanum Gear Ratio Recommendations
Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|