|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, the argument during our design sessions went something like this:
A "normal" two wheel or four wheel drive system is non-holonomic. It goes in one dimension (forward/backward) with the ability to change its direction while in motion. It is also possible to do an in-place turn, but there's lots of scrubbing going on with the wheels. However, the scrubbing is also a feature. If a robot were to be pushed at 90 degrees to its motion (left/right in an front/back movement), it would be difficult to push due to the scrubbing of the wheels. Yet, the omni-drive design intrinsically has the capability to roll freely in *any* direction. So, it would be susceptible to attacks from the side. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Death of FIRST | Anton Abaya | General Forum | 23 | 03-05-2006 17:18 |
| Loss of Gracious Professionalism Among First Teams | Melissa Nute | General Forum | 82 | 31-03-2003 19:34 |
| The 2003 Index of team's post about their robot... | Ken Leung | Robot Showcase | 4 | 28-02-2003 00:18 |
| More 'Best' Robots (a well thought list) | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Disqualifications | archiver | 1999 | 13 | 23-06-2002 21:53 |