8 MINI-CIM SWERVE

[Bryce Paputa]

What's the issue with a 6 CIM 3 wheeled swerve? As far as I can tell, it would be lighter, have less parts, and be more powerful than a 4 wheel 8 mini CIM one. Is traction an issue, or is it just that nobody has done one recently? I would think that with the semi-recent perimeter rule change a 3 module swerve with a triangular or circular chassis would be a good idea.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

Actually, the point of this thread was simply whether to allow 8 mini-Cims. The argument "not to increase available power" has nothing to say on this question, given that 8 mini-cims have a smaller TPE than 6 Cims, which are allowed.

Sorry, I mis-read the OP as "we want more mini CIMs". It is still overkill, IMO.

[Electronica1]

Out of curiosity, would it work if you were to have 4 modules, 2 with 1 cim and 2 with 2 cims (so you have a total of 6 cims), and set it up so that the 2 with 2 cims are diagonal to each other and the one cim modules are also diagonal to each other. That way you would have the power of 6 cims without messing up your movement by having one side of your robot more powerful than the other.

(I have little experience with swerve, so please correct me if this idea is flawed)

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

Actually, the point of this thread was simply whether to allow 8 mini-Cims. The argument "not to increase available power" has nothing to say on this question, given that 8 mini-cims have a smaller TPE than 6 Cims, which are allowed.

Absolutely.

I can't see how allowing 8mini-CIMs will prompt teams to build drive trains with more power than 6 cims. At some point beyond that diminishing returns have to make that impractical. If anything Mechanum, Octocanum, Swerve, Crab, etc. and manipulators would benefit more.

[Kevin Ainsworth]

Thanks for all the replies about this topic. We know that the GDC won't change the rules, this was just a fun topic to bring up and discuss.

The ultimate goal would be for teams to have more flexibility on their CIM/ MINI-CIM usage. The intention that started this thread. The flexibility to be creative outside of the standardized FRC robot.

Our personal desire is added acceleration on a 4 wheel swerve drive that would match a 6-CIM tank drive. We currently could run a CIM and MINI-CIM on each wheel according to last years rules so what would dual MINI-CIMs hurt?

I fully agree that the swerve has it's advantages and tradeoffs.

-Running two CIMS on two of the four wheel modules would not be optimal as Aren explained.
-6wd swerves we feel have a hard time keeping all their wheels on the ground and using all the power available.
-3wd swerves remind up of the Reliant Robin and why they made ATC (3-wheelers) illegal. Though I would love to hear from the teams that have successfully used a 3WD swerve.

We understand that other teams have successfully utilized the above designs and appreciate their creativity and desire to try something different.

For those that are arguing there is too much power already.
-The 8 MINI-CIM drivetrain wouldn't be any more powerful than the existing 6-CIM drivetrains, less actually.
-We do not encourage or allow intentional high speed ramming from our drivers. This year we did not feel everyone else felt this way.
-What keeps a team from running (6) CIMS and (4) MINI-CIMS currently? Power/weight/diminishing returns

A special thanks to Brendan for being the open minded voice of reason in this discussion.

[Whippet]

This thread gave me inspiration for what could revolutionize robot drives. You're welcome.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Whippet

This thread gave me inspiration for what could revolutionize robot drives. You're welcome.

I particularly like the wheels going right through the churro tubes. Erm, I mean, the parts of the frame machined to look like churro tubes, since the whole thing is one solid block of aluminum.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I particularly like the wheels going right through the churro tubes. Erm, I mean, the parts of the frame machined to look like churro tubes, since the whole thing is one solid block of aluminum.

At least the wheels are round, even if they are 10 inches in diameter. Also, gotta love those Toughbox mini XLs.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by Whippet

This thread gave me inspiration for what could revolutionize robot drives. You're welcome.

Clearly you're drawing inspiration from this.

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by asid61

Clearly you're drawing inspiration from this.

Some inspiration was taken from that thread, yes, but my team had decided that the advantage of decagon wheels was negated by having them on a six-wheel tank due to increased bearing friction. In addition, the holonomic configuration was removed due to the reduction in air resistance that resulted from angling all the wheels parallel to the direction of travel.

I am planning to develop a version in the future that uses every legal motor (including window motors to remove the risk of backdrive!)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Whippet

I am planning to develop a version in the future that uses every legal motor (including window motors to remove the risk of backdrive!)

Don't forget some rotary pneumatics (or clever use of linear pneumatics, similar to a steam engine's drive rods) to add that extra pep for pushing matches! Should anybody be so foolish as to try pushing you, of course.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Whippet

Some inspiration was taken from that thread, yes, but my team had decided that the advantage of decagon wheels was negated by having them on a six-wheel tank due to increased bearing friction. In addition, the holonomic configuration was removed due to the reduction in air resistance that resulted from angling all the wheels parallel to the direction of travel.

I am planning to develop a version in the future that uses every legal motor (including window motors to remove the risk of backdrive!)

Scouting at a regional:
"What does your robot do?"

"Well, uhm, it cant shoot, and it cant intake, and it cant score, and it cant turn, but it does fast really really well!"

[IronicDeadBird]

The opening line of this is...
"Would any one else like to see (8) MINI-CIM motors allowed so the swerves can be on par with the (6) CIM tank drives?"

Yes I would love to see swerve drives and tank drives get in meaningful skirmishes. However how would that effect other drive base interactions? I wouldn't want FRC to move to a point where it would be you either make an 8 MC swerve or 6 CIM Tank drive.
Lets be real here for a second though. Not all teams prioritize beast mode drive bases... Would 8 mini cim's on drive be equal to those extra mini cim's on scoring?
That question is entirely rule dependent and would differ from year to year. If suddenly FRC makes a no contact game then what?
Either way I think a major point we are all missing is that 8 mc's would make making an AT-AT more viable.

[themccannman]

FRC robots are pretty much now limited in motor count by battery capacity, and main breaker current limit so adding legal motors won't really change the number of motors most teams use. I would personally allow certain specific motors, but as many as you would like. I don't see an issue with teams running all mini cims instead of having to use an assortment of motors. If you allow 100 of each motor teams will stick with the same motor counts because the batteries/breakers won't support more than that.