Go to Post As part of this test phase, I would expect to see Aidan sleeping on the job for most of the upcoming season. :) - dlavery [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Technical Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-04-2008, 20:45
J_Greco's Avatar
J_Greco J_Greco is offline
That's ALARMing!
AKA: Jon Greco
FRC #2079 (ALARM)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Millis, MA
Posts: 13
J_Greco will become famous soon enough
Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?

I would definitely go with a 2+2 steering style as opposed to all wheels steered dependently. Our team used a swerve style drivetrain this year, and we used a effective 2+2 system. One disadvantage to the dependent steering is that it makes changing the orientation of the robot very difficult. If you want to have a tank steer mode, you must make sure that the treads on your wheels have a low coefficient of friction. Even with the 2+2 steer this is a problem we encountered this year. In fact, we had to change our treads between the Pittsburgh and Boston regionals in order to allow our tank steer mode to work (even though we never actually used it in competition). The 2+2 steer was effective for Overdrive because we had a variety of useful steering modes.
1. Front steering (for normal "car" style drive)
2. All wheel steering (for very tight turns. This was useful when coming around the center divider)
3. Swerve steering (for translating sideways without changing the orientation of the robot relative to the field)
4. Tank steering (the standard form of steering)

With a system where all wheels are steered together, you only get steering mode number 3. Unquestionably there are great advantages to choosing 2+2. We did encounter problems, however. The robot could not drive straight because the potentiometers did not provide a high enough resolution to make the robot align the wheels perfectly opposite to one another. We are going to experiment with a gyroscope in order to rectify this.
One option I would not leave out of the equation is steering each wheel independently. This would eliminate the need for tank steer and provides almost limitless potential for the robot's performance. We plan to do something like this next year.
Another thing to keep in mind is the location of your powertrain. If you have a centrally located powertrain, you can save weight and add a multi-speed transmission (another thing we plan to do next year). Otherwise you could mount the motor vertically and use beveled gears. We chose to do a direct drive style this year (you can see our hinged bumpers, they pop up every time we go into 4-wheel or swerve mode) this does tend to leave the motors exposed, however.
Obvioulsy there are other things that must be considered when choosing a drivetrain, but these are some of the basics. It is something into which ALARM puts much thought and energy.
__________________
A Lot of Awesome Robot Makers

Xerox Creativity Award - 2009 Boston Regional
Entrepreneurship Award - 2008 Boston Regional
GM Industrial Design Award - 2008 Pittsburgh Regional
Rookie All-Star Award - 2007 Boston Regional
Rookie High Seed Award - 2007 Boston Regional
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-04-2008, 22:08
Cow Bell Solo's Avatar
Cow Bell Solo Cow Bell Solo is offline
No Stolte No
AKA: Chris
FRC #2194 (Fondy Fire)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 381
Cow Bell Solo is a jewel in the roughCow Bell Solo is a jewel in the roughCow Bell Solo is a jewel in the roughCow Bell Solo is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to Cow Bell Solo Send a message via MSN to Cow Bell Solo Send a message via Yahoo to Cow Bell Solo
Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?

This year our team went with mecanum wheels and I was the driver this year and I found them to be very helpful, alot. Easy to move around obstacles and other robots. I would go with mecanum wheels over omni and we went with the AndyMark 8" wheels. Talking with other teams that went with the 6" ones weren't as satisfied. To check out some videos of our bot moving in all directions there are videos of it on our website at http://www.whitebearlakerobotics.com
__________________
Who let the Blue Smoke Out
Team 2194 Mentor - 2012-Present - http://fondyfire.com
Team 2207 Alumni - http://whitebearlakerobotics.com
Iowa FIRST LEGO League Planning Team Member - 2010-Present - http://www.isek.iastate.edu/fll
FIRST LEGO League volunteer - 2008-Present

2008: MN Regional Quarterfinalists, Website Excellence
2009: MN North Star Quarterfinalists, recognized for safety, Website Excellence
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-04-2008, 06:35
sgreco's Avatar
sgreco sgreco is offline
Registered User
AKA: Steven Greco
FRC #2079
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Millis
Posts: 1,031
sgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?

If all of your wheels are moving indepentently then you have all the capability of a 2+2 and more, using a 2+2 you have all the capability of a 4 and more. I would consider that none of these are any more complex than the others and go with each module being moved indepentently. An easy way to make this work is to vertically mount an FP motor and attach it to the wheel module and do this to all of the modules. Make sure the wheels are straight when you start a match because if they are a little off it can mess up hybrid mode. My team ran into this issue, it wasn't that bad in tele op but we had a good hybrid mode, but if the wheels weren't perfectly aligned the robot would cross one line and before it could get a second teh unstraightenedness would make it go into a wall.(it didn't help that our sonars died in eliminations)
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-04-2008, 06:58
Jimmy Cao Jimmy Cao is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jimmy Cao
no team
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 295
Jimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant futureJimmy Cao has a brilliant future
Re: Swerve drive 4, 2+2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgreco27 View Post
If all of your wheels are moving indepentently then you have all the capability of a 2+2 and more, using a 2+2 you have all the capability of a 4 and more. I would consider that none of these are any more complex than the others and go with each module being moved indepentently. An easy way to make this work is to vertically mount an FP motor and attach it to the wheel module and do this to all of the modules. Make sure the wheels are straight when you start a match because if they are a little off it can mess up hybrid mode. My team ran into this issue, it wasn't that bad in tele op but we had a good hybrid mode, but if the wheels weren't perfectly aligned the robot would cross one line and before it could get a second teh unstraightenedness would make it go into a wall.(it didn't help that our sonars died in eliminations)
A 2+2 system with dependent steering and drive is a lot simpler than a fully independent system. On a fully independent system, you would need to do feedback on 4 modules instead of 2. That means another 4 PIDs (2x forward 2x reverse). It also makes the precise control logic a lot more complicated.

A big challenge for us in previous years was to pack both the motor and any transmission inside the module itself, so we do not suffer efficiency loss through use of bevel gears. That, IMO, was one of the biggest challenges for us in these years. Additionally, remember it is vital to keep the wheel base as large as possible, and therefore, the modules as small as possible.
__________________
Jimmy Cao

Team 469 2006-2010 Student/Alumni
Team 830 2011-2012 Mentor
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swerve drive control system dpick1055 Programming 8 22-01-2007 19:06
A Swerve Drive Question lndnny Technical Discussion 10 20-07-2006 08:09
Swerve Drive Whitepapers/Info Ryan F. Kit & Additional Hardware 1 20-10-2005 00:51
Swerve Drive on a Jeep Karthik Math and Science 3 01-02-2005 17:50
Swerve Drive Jeff Waegelin Technical Discussion 14 17-09-2001 08:06


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:33.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi