[FTC]: Is this Mecanum wheel configuration acceptable?

[ImMoMo]

Originally Posted by Billfred

They say that if you say "AndyMark" three times we show up. Or sometimes just once...

Some considerations I see:

1) Those parts will all mate, but we'd suggest the Nub over the Tetrix hub for the D-bore. Set screws aren't a good look.
2) On one hand, cantilevered wheels will give you some flex that is desirable in mecanum drives. On the other hand, supporting both ends is beneficial as weights increase (especially for prolonging motor life). Our TileRunner chassis is certainly one way to accomplish that (and speed the motors back up, to account for mecanum inefficiencies), whether you buy it or just draw inspiration from it. A second Nub on the other side of the wheel and D-shaft into a bearing block would accomplish this too. And as Gus says above, make sure it'll actually clear (or just flip the drivetrain over).
3) You don't mention which NeveRests you're using. 20s are on the ragged edge in direct-drive applications for FTC-weight robots; teams using 40s during Fight Night had no problems, while teams using 20s were breaking gearheads (admittedly, under higher-than-usual voltages and abuse).

Thank you for mentioning the Nub, I was looking for something like that for a while now. Doesn't the Nub also require a set screw? It seems like it provides the same function as the hub though. I think the Nub will be beneficial for supporting the shaft, like you suggested. I'm thinking we add another member to support the end of the shaft using the method you suggest, my only question is - what kind of bearing block/bearing would fit the 6mm d-shaft that will be output from the other side of the wheel?

We will try to use 20's, but if we can't get those ordered on time, I'm thinking we go with the Matrix motors.. they seem similar to the 20s/40s.
I don't predict too much strenuous motor action..