pic: Another concept study

[Tom Ore]

loading photo ...

Beautiful design and render, as always. One question, though - Any reason to have the traction wheels on the inside instead of the outside?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Beautiful design and render, as always. One question, though - Any reason to have the traction wheels on the inside instead of the outside?

Shorter turn base?

Originally Posted by CalTran

Shorter turn base?

I thought that, but it seems like a really small wheelbase then for only two 4" wheels.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

I thought that, but it seems like a really small wheelbase then for only two 4" wheels.

It's not too small. If that's modeled as the long side of the robot, that'd be somewhere around 12"-15" between wheels.

Originally Posted by CalTran

It's not too small. If that's modeled as the long side of the robot, that'd be somewhere around 12"-15" between wheels.

Oh, looked short sided to me.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Oh, looked short sided to me.

I might be wrong that it's long side. I just can't imagine doing octocanum for a wide robot.

[ehfeinberg]

I guess that when driving with Octunum, you would drive it like mecanum with traction wheels. Thus you would be mostly driving with mecanum, using your traction wheels only if you need more traction.

Because of this, and with a much smaller wheel base, You might encounter some rock when on the inner wheels. Since you would want your main drive orientation to be as stable as possible, you could want your mecanum wheels on the outside. Also, for mecanum to work well, you really want all 4 wheels to be in contact with the floor at all times. If the mecanum wheels are the inner sets of wheels, during rocking, one or two of the wheels might lose traction with the floor impeding on your motion. (This rock might be negligible but hey, there is no disadvantage on having the mecanum wheels on the outside (And imo it looks cooler))

[ENeyman]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I might be wrong that it's long side. I just can't imagine doing octocanum for a wide robot.

I'm not sure if this is the long side or the wide side, but in this render by the same person, he says that his team uses a mini-octocanum because they have a wide robot.

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Beautiful design and render, as always. One question, though - Any reason to have the traction wheels on the inside instead of the outside?

I did the concept study this way because it made sense for last year's game. We wanted maximum stability on the Mecanum wheels. You would have to decide what made sense based on the game. It could be wide or long - again depending on the game.

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

I did the concept study this way because it made sense for last year's game. We wanted maximum stability on the Mecanum wheels. You would have to decide what made sense based on the game. It could be wide or long - again depending on the game.

That makes a lot more sense. What are the speeds for each wheel? How much does it weigh?

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

That makes a lot more sense. What are the speeds for each wheel? How much does it weigh?

I believe I have the Mecanums at around 13 fps and the (3.25") traction wheels at around 7 fps.

The module we competed with last season weighed 23 lbs for each side so 46 lbs total - very heavy. This one is 18 lbs for each side for 36 lbs total. We sure could have used that 10 lbs last year. For example, we only had 1 motor driving our shooting wheel because we just didn't have the weight allowance to add a second motor.

Also, last year's version would have been nearly impossible to maintain if anything had failed. This one is very easy to maintain. The Mecanum wheel can be removed by just removing the one screw. The gear boxes have just 4 screws and the clevis pin. The CIMS stay with the frame rail when you drop the gearbox.

[JesseK]

Is there any concern that the shaft on the reduction just prior to the 3.25" traction wheel won't hold up to the stresses of having 1/4 the robot's weight on it while transferring higher torque through it?

The shaft looks like it's 0.375" even though the wheels themselves are on a 0.5" shaft (based upon bearing holes, so it's just a guess), which is the only reason I bring it up. Seems to me that if the wheels need to be on a 0.5" shaft, then that particular reduction shaft needs to also be 0.5" since it will hold the weight of the robot when the traction wheel is down. Or maybe the wheel shafts are 0.5" since the 1/8" keyway is more preferred for the wheel?

Love the render.

[Akash Rastogi]

I really like the compact packaging of your design. Do you think, just for kicks, you'd try out a vertically oriented CIM + bevel gears to have all the space in the center free? Might be fun, although not necessary.

What are the distances between mec to mec and traction to traction?

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

I believe I have the Mecanums at around 13 fps and the (3.25") traction wheels at around 7 fps.

The module we competed with last season weighed 23 lbs for each side so 46 lbs total - very heavy. This one is 18 lbs for each side for 36 lbs total. We sure could have used that 10 lbs last year. For example, we only had 1 motor driving our shooting wheel because we just didn't have the weight allowance to add a second motor.

Also, last year's version would have been nearly impossible to maintain if anything had failed. This one is very easy to maintain. The Mecanum wheel can be removed by just removing the one screw. The gear boxes have just 4 screws and the clevis pin. The CIMS stay with the frame rail when you drop the gearbox.

You may want to consider making the macanum's slower. 13 FPS will not give you a lot of torque on the wheels that is needed to make your roboto strafe. In 2011 we used CIMple boxes on our 6inch mecanum's and we were unable to strafe. I may be wrong because I am not a Mecanum master or anything, but this is just from my experience.