Octocanum Drive/ Mecanum Suspension Designs?

[carpedav000]

I just thought of something and I was wandering if it had ever been done before. Has anyone done a octicanum-like drivetrain with slide drive that can switch to 6-wheel drop-center? It would definitely push it with weight, but it might make it more worthwhile to go into traction mode for prolonged periods of time.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

I just thought of something and I was wandering if it had ever been done before. Has anyone done a octicanum-like drivetrain with slide drive that can switch to 6-wheel drop-center? It would definitely push it with weight, but it might make it more worthwhile to go into traction mode for prolonged periods of time.

You lost me at "octicanum[sic]-like drivetrain with slide drive". Octanum uses four mecanum and four traction wheels. Slide drive (aka H-drive) uses five omni wheels. 6-wheel drop-center uses six traction wheels. Would you mind backing up and taking another swing at this?

[Darkseer54]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

You lost me at "octicanum[sic]-like drivetrain with slide drive". Octanum uses four mecanum and four traction wheels. Slide drive (aka H-drive) uses five omni wheels. 6-wheel drop-center uses six traction wheels. Would you mind backing up and taking another swing at this?

He is saying basically your idea for the sixwheel with drop down mec's, except instead of octocanum use nonadrive.

[InFlight]

We've used the Vex Mecanum wheels with Andmark Nanoboxes with No problems at all this year. We have encoders on each gearbox (3D printed bracket), gyro correction, and a very stiff frame. Wheels are set up to drive on to the scoring platform, and strafe to pickup totes in the landfill.

The Nanoboxes have very limited clearance between the upper mounting bolts and the CIM motor. We had to machine down the mounting bolt head OD to make these gearbox noise free.

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by Darkseer54

He is saying basically your idea for the sixwheel with drop down mec's, except instead of octocanum use nonadrive.

Yay, I didn't confuse everyone!

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

You lost me at "octicanum[sic]-like drivetrain with slide drive". Octanum uses four mecanum and four traction wheels. Slide drive (aka H-drive) uses five omni wheels. 6-wheel drop-center uses six traction wheels. Would you mind backing up and taking another swing at this?

NOTE: I'm saying "switch" because I haven't a clue what the technical term is

Okay, I said octicanum-like because it still involves the ability to "switch" drive trains. Basically, you have six modules with traction and omnis. Then you have a center omni hard mounted to the center in the normal H-drive way. When you "switch" to traction, the wheel in the center gets raised off the ground. When you "switch" back to omni, the traction wheels go back up and the center wheel gets lowered back down to the ground. Did I better your understanding of it?

[Team3844]

Team 3844 has been playing around with some firestone air springs as actuators that double as suspension. We will have some to give out at Championships next week if you are interested.

[dougwilliams]

Originally Posted by Team3844

Team 3844 has been playing around with some firestone air springs as actuators that double as suspension. We will have some to give out at Championships next week if you are interested.

Unfortunately we won't be at Championships, but if you had a part number, pictures or CAD of your design we'd love to take a look.

[cad321]

Originally Posted by dougwilliams

Unfortunately we won't be at Championships, but if you had a part number, pictures or CAD of your design we'd love to take a look.

^Seconded

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Even when you're driving forward, mecanum doesn't behave as you expect when a wheel is off the floor. The front of the robot will rotate towards the side of the airborne wheel. If it's a front wheel that comes off the carpet, this will tend to rotate the robot so that it is more nearly parallel with the edge you are climbing, usually making matters worse.

And I can certainly imagine wanting to strafe across the scoring platform to cap a stack that was already built, or to pack the stacks in close to each other to leave room for more.

Please explain how so many robots with mecanum wheels are able to drive over the scoring platform perfectly fine at angles. It has quite a lot to do with the gyro/PID correction. (See videos of 1983, 3574 ect on PNW First youtube channel)

Also, if you're strafing ACROSS the scoring platform with your wheels on it how can you cap? The wheels will be where a stack is, unless you're like the High Tekerz and have you're wheels mounted perpendicular to the front of your robot w/ a cutout.



I'd also encourage teams to seriously consider just how much value holonomic motion is adding to your robot.

Ex: In the case of 4488 where everything is automated it is of high value to their game strategy (auto alignment to feeder station)
However, for a team with a built in ramp (2826) they easily align with the feeder station w/ a 6wd because they designed for imprecision, mecanum is of low value to them.

IN NO WAY am I saying that you should never use mecanum, but that you should honestly evaluate every option available to you in line with what Karthik outlines here. If, after honest analysis you believe that mecanum, octocanum or some other holonomic/holobrid is the best option; then go for it.

This section is a word of warning from a team that had a slide drive, and got rid of it because we weren't getting the value we expected out of it.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

Please explain how so many robots with mecanum wheels are able to drive over the scoring platform perfectly fine at angles. It has quite a lot to do with the gyro/PID correction.

Sounds like you covered the explanation pretty well. Corrections are always possible, sometimes within the time you have to design, build, and program them.

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

Also, if you're strafing ACROSS the scoring platform with your wheels on it how can you cap? The wheels will be where a stack is, unless you're like the High Tekerz and have you're wheels mounted perpendicular to the front of your robot w/ a cutout.

I was thinking more of aligning new stacks with old to make plenty of room. As we decided early not to climb on the scoring platforms (admittedly not our best decision ever), I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking through these use cases.

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

I'd also encourage teams to seriously consider just how much value holonomic motion is adding to your robot.

Absolutely. We were planning for significant automation in alignment to totes that would have made slide drive essential. At one point, we had used all of our DIOs and had to use two off of the MXP, plus we were hoping to use a camera for left/right (strafe) alignment on totes. When we realized we were unable to program these cases robustly in time, most of the sensors came off.

Originally Posted by Dunngeon

This section is a word of warning from a team that had a slide drive, and got rid of it because we weren't getting the value we expected out of it.

Same here. At CMP, we'll be driving a 4 wheel omni, and have exactly 3 CIMs and no other actuators. By the time we made the "no strafe" decision, it was too late to go back to 6-wheel to see if it would work better for us, especially if we found out we'd have to switch back. We may very well have a 6-wheel drive for Red Stick Rumble. However, rather than shy away from holonomic, I'm working up some sensor-heavy programming exercises for the summer and fall sessions.

(On a couple of non-drive notes, we now have a better tote lifter that is much more likely to pass inspection than our original spring-cushioned "rake". Despite this, it still has the double end-lift as well as single side-lift capabilities, and is fully capable of doing either on the step as well as the floor. We have also practiced far more tote-flipping since Bayou than we did before. We're striving to make these "inaccessible" totes available to some major stacker 'bots that are running out of "easy" totes. Carson may prove to be the best division we could hope for! )

[lark95]

hi all, just thought i would chime in.
this year we used with no suspension and no gyro on a very stiff overbuild 80/20 frame. the only problems we had with driving was when going over the end of the scoring platform when only two wheels were on the floor.

Also though we had some of the most drive practice we have ever had,(about 50-60 hours) As primary driver i already had one years experience.

So my question is this. Is there any advantage to spending an extra week or two in the build season to design these complex drives, coding gyros, and building suspension if those few weeks could have been devoted to the drive team practice? I know this year it paid off to go simple. We made it to the finals in Milwaukee.

[dougwilliams]

Originally Posted by lark95

hi all, just thought i would chime in.
this year we used with no suspension and no gyro on a very stiff overbuild 80/20 frame. the only problems we had with driving was when going over the end of the scoring platform when only two wheels were on the floor.

Also though we had some of the most drive practice we have ever had,(about 50-60 hours) As primary driver i already had one years experience.

So my question is this. Is there any advantage to spending an extra week or two in the build season to design these complex drives, coding gyros, and building suspension if those few weeks could have been devoted to the drive team practice? I know this year it paid off to go simple. We made it to the finals in Milwaukee.

Good point - and I mostly agree. I think you need to have a frame to reference when talking about the benefits that suspension and gyros add to your competitive experience. Over the last 3 years we have gone from a very rigid 80/20 frame, to a kit frame, to kit frame with gyro. In each year we made it to eliminations at our regional. I think a big difference is that (in my opinion) we had better drivers. I think that fact is discounted a lot in the discussions because it's not quantifiable, and by and large, engineers like quantifiable data.

Our rigid mecanum robot did fine over the platform all through competition. I'm sure it would have fared (almost) as well without the gyro. I think the gyro only corrected for direction when we hopped the platform in our auto routine - without that, I definitely would imagine our robot would have hit slightly at an angle and veered off course at least once.

As the starter of this thread, I can say the reason we are looking at a more complex drive (octocanum) is because we love the motion control we have with mecanum, but dislike the "bad defense, no pushing match" stigma it gets. And then, if we are going octocanum, we might as well find a way to get the benefit of suspension if possible. Aside, I do believe our chassis warps over the season and not all wheels make perfect ground contact, and that can skew direction/performance of the mecanum. I believe that is compensated by our drivers, but it would be nice to have something smoother.

100% agree that I'd take a rigid, non-suspended mecanum robot with an amazing driver with lots of practice, over a suspended, gyro-compensated mecanum robot with little drive practice. In my mind driver practice is worth many times more.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by lark95

So my question is this. Is there any advantage to spending an extra week or two in the build season to design these complex drives, coding gyros, and building suspension if those few weeks could have been devoted to the drive team practice? I know this year it paid off to go simple. We made it to the finals in Milwaukee.

For 90% of teams, more driver practice is more important than adding extra functionality.
That being said, for that other top 10%, crazy suspensions and drive systems can be worth it.

The other thing to consider in both scenarios is what your students are getting out of it. Cool, crazy drivetrains can be fantastic learning experiences for students. And even if they don't work out competitively, they provide lessons for the future.

This year 20 used mecanum for the first time since 2008. We felt it was appropriate for this game, and with smart programming we could get around the need for a suspension, and we hoped to build a flexible enough chassis.

As usual, though, 20 doesn't really do "non-rigid" when it comes to frame design, and some design hiccups in the middle of build season resulted in 20's weird rigid trapezoidal frame: (https://plus.google.com/108224752813010749343/posts/3qH3xHN5Ghv?pid=6116193614109484338&oid=1082247528 13010749343)

The practice bot strafes and drives perfectly in both autonomous and teleoperated mode, while the competition robot does not. As a result, our practice robot is capable of two stacks/match consistently and a tote stack auto, while our competition robot has yet to show that it can do that.

What this has done was taught the team something. What this hasn't done was win any blue banners (yet. )

Was it an off-year for 20? In many respects, yes, but in others, no. We did some really cool things 20 hasn't really done before, and as annoyed as I have been at certain shortcomings of the team this year, in many ways we've stepped up our game.

In summary: Do what's right for your team. (basically the conclusion of every Chief thread these days).