Skunkworks Drive Train??

[wilsonmw04]

maybe i need to clarify my comment. (i forget i'm talking to detail oriented folks) The drive I suggested would no allow "drifting" as you would see in the OP's design. It would allow the 'bot to turn within it's own radius and have the power to push along one axis. Are there better ways to do this? Yes, 6-wheel rockers come to mind. Holonomic drives are a bad choice for the games that i have seen in FIRST. There is too much contact and pushing to be feasible.I'm just not a fan of being able to apply only 1/2 my power to one direction.
I have seen very well built machines, (Henrico Triad) who use a mechanum wheel based drives, have difficultly with this years game because they cannot hold their ground around the rack. Until FIRST creates a finesse game or changes the rules to reduce the contact, power will outperform agility every time.

To Bob: L33t was not lost on me, Pwn3d... hehe.

I like it, for a concept. I'm not digging the shape, however. It looks like the base is a little small. You might want to arrange the modules in a rectangle (diagonally near the corners), in order to be able to use more of the allowed box.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

I'm not digging the shape, however. It looks like the base is a little small. You might want to arrange the modules in a rectangle (diagonally near the corners), in order to be able to use more of the allowed box.

That was my immediate reaction too. Also, is the picture upside-down? Building a drive-train that high off the ground might make you even more prone to tipping.

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

simply using a drive system that worked before or one that is neat to design and operate are not good sound engineering decisions by themselves.

Forcing the design of the robot to work in the game is much more difficult than trying to figure out the best design for the game.

To use 254/968/60/22 (the list goes on) as an example I'd have to disagree with you. These teams have used almost the exact same system for the last 7 years with little impact on their success. The enormous quantity of experience they have gained over the years has allowed them to slowly tune and perfect the system. The same goes for any team that has used the same design every year.

These teams are guaranteed a proven, reliable system every year.

Please realize that I encourage innovation. After all, 254/968/60/22 had to start somewhere! What your team designs should be entirely dependent on your own goals for the season.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

To use 254/968/60/22 (the list goes on) as an example I'd have to disagree with you. These teams have used almost the exact same system for the last 7 years with little impact on their success. The enormous quantity of experience they have gained over the years has allowed them to slowly tune and perfect the system. The same goes for any team that has used the same design every year.

These teams are guaranteed a proven, reliable system every year.

Please realize that I encourage innovation. After all, 254/968/60/22 had to start somewhere! What your team designs should be entirely dependent on your own goals for the season.

Your thinking is sound, but it also forces you to think differently in your approach to the game. Like Bob is saying, we had to make our robot adapt to the game, in certain situations. In 2004 we hung from the floor instead of climbing the platform. We could do so--using the arm to boost ourselves up, but it would have been hokey.

This year we choose to go with small wheels, and as a result could not get on all team's ramps. Our solution was to generally just keep scoring, or to use pure momentum and ram our way up ramps.

Sometimes it's easy to adapt something that you've been using for years, and not suffer for it. Sometimes it would be better to switch to something else.