Go to Post Don't like it? Then lets change the culture. - Barry Bonzack [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
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 09:04
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,149
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

For the last 3 years KB33 has been build 6WD aluminum sheet metal chassis. It has been an iterative design mostly focusing on more robust drivetrain. One thing we think we have noticed is that some machines seem to be more maneuverable than ours. In 2006 we were underpowered and had a difficult time executing turns. In 2007, we did a good job of holding our own, but there were faster and more agile robots. For 2008, we ended up going with an asymmetric chassis set up with 3 omni-wheels on three corners to improve turning. This was OK for Overdrive where D was mostly played on the ball, but would have been death in 2007.
So here is the question for 6WD teams:
Have any of you noticed chassis stiffness (most likely torsional) making a big difference in agility? I know that rock (amount of lift or drop on 1 set of wheels) plays a huge part, but with similar rock, we just don't seem as maneuverable as 1114, 254, and several others....... Could some of the iterative 6WD teams please chime in on this. If it is trade secrets, I understand, but if you care to share your knowledge I have open ears. I did a lot of analysis on slip and traction curves vs. speed and power consumption. My calculations model our chassis very well, but I was amazed to see that certain teams seem to defy the physics I know. Is it an illusion and you guys struggle with scrub balance, or do you just have a better tuned chassis?

P.S. Let's please stick with 6WD design discussion. I realize there are a lot of pros and cons to other designs (swerve, halonomic....), but would like to keep this 6WD related.

Last edited by IKE : 03-07-2008 at 09:07. Reason: Additional Clarification
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 10:12
Tom Line's Avatar
Tom Line Tom Line is offline
Raptors can't turn doorknobs.
FRC #1718 (The Fighting Pi)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Armada, Michigan
Posts: 2,532
Tom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond reputeTom Line has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Maneuverability - i.e. turning rate, is base on several things.

Torque (inversely proportional to speed), especially if you are skid-steering.

Friction, i.e. wheel material type.

Weight distribution front to back.

Wheel base, both in the x and y dimensions. "Rocking" your wheels, or lowering the center one, is a way of giving yourself a wide wheelbase because you generally only have 4 wheels that are primary load balancing wheels.

If you are looking at ways to improve your turning, ask yourself this:
Assuming that your torque is fixed,

1. Do we need friction on the front and rear wheels? Some people add zip ties around the wheels to lower it. Some people "flip" their treads. Some people use omnis in the front and rear. Some people use wedgetop rather than roughtop.

2. Is our weight distributed in the center of the robot? If you are weighted heavily to the front or back, it will affect how you turn. The easiest way to experiement is try with your battery in different locations and see how the robot reacts.

It's my guess that they either have more rock than you do, a different weight distribution, or less friction on their front and rear wheels.

Editted to add: I am by no means an expert on this - we've fought our own battle this year. We want straight line stability for autonomous, but it doesn't lend itself to easy turning. We went through a number of iterations this year with our drivetrain trying to find something that worked well. In the end we had to gear down more than we like just to be able to turn, and our top end speed suffered a bit as a result. We never did get that 5th auton line.

Last edited by Tom Line : 03-07-2008 at 10:58.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 10:35
Unsung FIRST Hero
JVN JVN is offline
@JohnVNeun
AKA: John Vielkind-Neun
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Greenville, Tx
Posts: 3,159
JVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

In my experience it is VERY possible to do a 6WD with 6 high traction wheels. If you find yourself reducing traction on some wheels to increase turning, you're negating MANY of the virtues of using a 6WD in the first place.

There have been lots of arguments about optimizing a 6WD configuration, especially centered on how much "wheel drop" you should use. In my experience this isn't as huge a factor as many people seem to think.

I believe that the key to a well performing 6WD lies in the robot's CG. A lower CG will result in much better performance than a higher CG. Placement front-to-back is also important and will greatly change the way a drivetrain performs.

Don't believe me? Take one of your old robots and add some weights to it in different places, observe the change.

Good Luck! Looking forward to seeing Team 33 at IRI.
-John
__________________
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for VEX Robotics a subsidiary of Innovation First International (IFI) Crown Supplier & Proud Supporter of FIRST
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 10:54
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is offline
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,695
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

We have had this problem as well in the two years we've done a 6WD. Even in '08, when the front wheels were omni and and two rear traction wheels were spaced only 12" from each other, we still had issues ('07 was a rocker). Come to think of it, our ramps were mounted on the outside of the frame in '07 and the mass of our elevator in '08 came down right on the inside of each wheel.

This makes me wonder if the mass distribution left to right on the bot should look fairly centric rather than outward.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 10:58
Woodie Flowers Award
Ken Patton Ken Patton is offline
purple
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 338
Ken Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond reputeKen Patton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN View Post
I believe that the key to a well performing 6WD lies in the robot's CG. A lower CG will result in much better performance than a higher CG. Placement front-to-back is also important and will greatly change the way a drivetrain performs.
I think John has it exactly right. The lower CG machines - and the ones mentioned were lower CG than the 33 machine - were able to make the turns in a smooth and fast way.

I don't know this for sure - it would be interesting to get some comments from the 1114 or 254 people - but did they bias their 2008 fore-aft CG so that the bot is running on the back wheels through the turns? My guess is that they did.

One other item that you mentioned in the title is chassis stiffness. I have always thought that 33 machines have had a somewhat flexible chassis. Maybe this is causing an unintended wheel contact through the turns as the chassis flexes?

The previous 33 design, with short wheelbase center+rear drive (like you had in 2002 I think) was amazingly fast and maneuverable. I was surprised you guys didn't use that layout for 2008.

Ken
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 12:01
desi_technology's Avatar
desi_technology desi_technology is offline
Registered User
AKA: Shahil
FRC #0176 (Aces High)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 20
desi_technology is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to desi_technology
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

We haven't had any problems with 6WD drive for speed and turning ability. We used 6 4x2 IFI traction wheels with the center wheels have a 5/32 in drop which was just enough to allow us to turn well yet retaining pushing power as well. All six wheels had the gum rubber thread from mcmaster so it really stuck to the carpet well. I think the key here is what john mentioned earlier is your robot CG!!!, we had 60% off our total weight four inches off the ground which made a great difference in our mobility. If done right you don't need any omni wheels in the front or back to turn smoothly.
__________________
AWARDS:
2007- Greater Tronoto Winners Thanks To 1114, 2056
2007- Connecticut Finalists

2006- UTC WINNERS, THANKS TO 177,1124
2006- BAE FINALISTS
2005- UTC Woodie Flowers Winner
2005- UTC Engineering Inspiration Award Winner
2005- Long Island Safety Award
2004- BAE Granite State Winners
2004- Nationals Finalist Award in Newton Division
1999- Nation Champions

Visit us at:

www.aceshigh176.org
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 12:09
NickE's Avatar
NickE NickE is offline
_
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 620
NickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond reputeNickE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

254's 2008 Robot had an extremely low center of gravity. Also, the vast majority of our weight was in the rear of the robot mainly due to the following things:
  • All elevator mounting points were within 6" of rear wheel axle
  • Battery positioned slightly to the rear of center axle
  • Compressor (and most pneumatics) were on rear of robot
  • Due to open front of frame, all electronics (except for speed controllers) were mounted rear of the center axle
I believe that our center wheels were dropped 3/16", and all wheels are 4" diameter and 1" wide, using black roughtop tread

Due to the weight distribution on our robot, the robot rarely had any weight whatsoever on the front wheels. When changing tread throughout the season, the front wheels rarely required a change (they probably could've gone the whole season on one set of tread). However, the center and rear wheels burned through tread much quicker (during competition, we typically changed the tread about once per day of competition, but always had a spare set of treaded wheels ready)

During play, the robot was probably on the rear/center wheels over 90% of the time, and only really rocked during quick stops and reversals of direction.

Last edited by NickE : 03-07-2008 at 12:14.
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 12:40
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,149
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Thanks. I really appreciate the great feedback so far.

Here are some observations of our chassis developement. There is a bit of a monkey wrench in the "CG" height thing.

During the build season, we took it for a test drive when it was still a bare chassis and balasted with sand bags up to competition weight. We used the sand bags to change for-aft weight distribution, but the "CG" height could not have been more than 7" off the floor. The same dynamic issues that we see in the fully prepped machine were there with the bare chassis.
The omnis were added to improve cornering. When we had omnis on all 4 corners the chassis predictably had a lot of whip. If the "CG" was not balanced for aft, it was extremely loose (unstable). When I ran the turning delta power calculations it was under 50 Watts (delta side to side) for a relatively high speed tight turn. This can be achieved by just the slightest release of inboard power with a 2 chip per side powertrain. When we had 2 KOP wheels on the back the chassis required a lot of reverse inside torque to turn even at high speeds (approximately 300 watts calculated for the same turn that was 50 watts above). This was correlated with motor temps as example 1 the inner motors stayed cool, while the motors were significantly hotter in example 2. For competition we went with 1 omni (inside rear) and 1 KOP outside rear, high traction wheels in the center and omnis up front. The calcualted turning power (again for similar turns) was about 150 watts. This set up has been good for our machine for this year, but would lack in 2007 games.
As JVN stated, I know it is possible to run with 6 high traction wheels with relatively little rock (I have seen these machines and talked to them about their "rock" or "drop"). It just isn't "working" for us. That is why we were thinking stiffness plays a big role.
("Working" is relative term here in that we were able to repeatably get 5 and sometimes 6 lines in Hybrid on clean runs, so it does handle pretty well. I am really looking for turning good into great refinement.)

Ken,
The 2 traction 4 omni set up performed similar to what the 2002 did (so I am told, I have only 4 years with the Bees). With the high speeds of Overdrive it was just a little too unstable.

Tom- Talk to Jim Z. and he can give you some really cool tips on how to drive straight. With a gyro and some tuning he can help with the straight equation.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 12:41
s_forbes's Avatar
s_forbes s_forbes is online now
anonymous internet person
FRC #0842 (Falcon Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,142
s_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

The cg idea is interesting. It fits our 6wd robots; they were both very maneuverable and had a very low center of gravity.

The frame twisting is also interesting... our 2007 robot had a ton of flexibility, twisting wise, in the frame. If you grabbed the arm mast and move it to either side, you could make the outside wheels (on opposite corners) touch the ground simultaneously. It never happened when we were driving around though. (the arm only weighed 15 lbs after all)

It may be possible that your problem is a combination of relatively high cg and a twisty frame. If you try to take a corner with all of that weight higher up it may twist your frame enough to effectively eliminate your dropped center wheels. Just an idea. (maybe someone clever could figure out how to test it...)


EDIT: hmm, your sandbag test is interesting. How high up were the sandbags, and how were they mounted? Our 2007 chassis was only six inches high, and only the arm extended above that amount. The arm was also mounted in the middle of the back end of the chassis (no braces to the corners), maybe that has something to do with it?

Last edited by s_forbes : 03-07-2008 at 12:47.
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 12:54
Unsung FIRST Hero
JVN JVN is offline
@JohnVNeun
AKA: John Vielkind-Neun
FRC #0148 (Robowranglers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Greenville, Tx
Posts: 3,159
JVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond reputeJVN has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE View Post
Thanks. I really appreciate the great feedback so far.

Here are some observations of our chassis developement. There is a bit of a monkey wrench in the "CG" height thing.

During the build season, we took it for a test drive when it was still a bare chassis and balasted with sand bags up to competition weight. We used the sand bags to change for-aft weight distribution, but the "CG" height could not have been more than 7" off the floor. The same dynamic issues that we see in the fully prepped machine were there with the bare chassis.
The omnis were added to improve cornering. When we had omnis on all 4 corners the chassis predictably had a lot of whip. If the "CG" was not balanced for aft, it was extremely loose (unstable). When I ran the turning delta power calculations it was under 50 Watts (delta side to side) for a relatively high speed tight turn. This can be achieved by just the slightest release of inboard power with a 2 chip per side powertrain. When we had 2 KOP wheels on the back the chassis required a lot of reverse inside torque to turn even at high speeds (approximately 300 watts calculated for the same turn that was 50 watts above). This was correlated with motor temps as example 1 the inner motors stayed cool, while the motors were significantly hotter in example 2. For competition we went with 1 omni (inside rear) and 1 KOP outside rear, high traction wheels in the center and omnis up front. The calcualted turning power (again for similar turns) was about 150 watts. This set up has been good for our machine for this year, but would lack in 2007 games.
The fact that you are calculating turning power requirements is a cool thing. We never go into that level of detail. Turning is one of those things that we do experimentally (for better or for worse) and based on prior experience. (Guess and Check is probably a bad way to do it, but it seems to be working out so far. Negative reinforcement of the worst kind.)

What motors were you running in your drive this year?

-John
__________________
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for VEX Robotics a subsidiary of Innovation First International (IFI) Crown Supplier & Proud Supporter of FIRST
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 13:22
kramarczyk's Avatar
kramarczyk kramarczyk is offline
is getting his kicks.
AKA: Mark Kramarczyk
FRC #3096 (Highlanders)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 602
kramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

A low CG certainly does help you withstand higher turning moments, but it does not help you generate them.

For those that have read Chris Hibner's whitepaper on turning (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1443), which is everybody I hope, it looks at the individual contribution of each wheel to the turning moment, so I suggest we start here. The moment is generated at each wheel by the coefficient of friction (CoF) and normal force (Fn) at each wheel. I think that the CoF is largely understood as demonstrated by the unusual wheel choices cited above. So what changes the Fn at each wheel? Simplifing the frame as a series of beams for discussion we can reference some stock solutions for the beams with 3 supports; based upon a uniform load the 3 moment equations show that the center axle would support 62.5% of the load with 18.75% for the outer axles. A snapshot of this eqn is in a previous post here.
__________________
Mark

Brick walls are for other people. - Randy Pausch
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 13:25
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,149
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

JVN:
4 cims into slightly modified AndyMark gen1 shifters set up for 7 fps and 14fps (not sure on top end, I have slept too many times since then). We were going to add a FP to the outside drivetrain but needed it for the elevator. Jim Z's kids are actually the chassis crew, and mine were responsible for the elevator. I did the chassis turning power calculations to see if we were missing something in our optimization process. Our first wheel selection had the driver full power on the outside stick and partial revers power only on the inside side. I did a lot of Dynamics calculations because I thought Overdrive would be even faster than it was. I thought that robots like 148 might be capable of up to 20 laps with a clean track. I was going to post some of the power calculation stuff until i saw 1114 driving around even faster with 6 grippy wheels.

s_forbes:
The sandbags were laying on top of frame members that are 5 inches from the floor, and were duct taped in place (got to use duct tape during build season since it isn't allowed later). They are flat 25lb bags that when flat are only 1 inch thick. A ballasted chassis can tell you wahat Vmax and acceleration rates are for your robot. If you have poor theoretical top speed to actual top speed this can be a symptom of drivetrain efficiency issues (mis-aligned chain, or bound gear-sets).

33 CG height:
As far as CG height goes, our CG is actually about the same height as 254. 33 looks deceptively top-heavy due to the poly-panels. We do get a very high CG when the elevator goes up, but otherwise about 70% of our weight is below 7" and another 15% below 1foot line.
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 13:35
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,149
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Thanks for the white-paper. These are pretty much the identical equations I used in my turning power spreadsheet. My assumption was that with rock I would be a 14"x28" Wheel base by track robot. I then used different mu values for longitudal and lateral values based off of experiemental day from the AM website and some of the good folks from 494. If you multiply the skid force by the velocity you get Power. Just make sure you use velocity and not simply speed as the direction component is very important to the overall amplitude.
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 15:58
Herodotus's Avatar
Herodotus Herodotus is offline
Mountain Dew Bandolier Man
AKA: David Resowski
FRC #0910 (Foley Freeze)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 428
Herodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond reputeHerodotus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

This past year we went with 2WD but in 2007 we had 6WD. I found the robot that year to be very maneuverable and we only had, I believe, a 16th inch drop on the center wheel along with six two inch wide traction wheels. I would be inclined to agree with you that chassis stiffness is a big factor in turning ability because that year we had a welded box aluminum frame that was very stiff. Testing may be the only way to get very good answers. If you have the time to spare try building a few different chassis designs before the build season and test out their turning capabilities.
__________________
I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
--My Life in FIRST--
2009 Detroit Xerox Creativity Award
2009 Detroit District Finalists - Thanks to 1856 and 2620
2009 Kettering District Quarter-Finalists - Thanks to 1504 and 1025.
2008 Kettering Kickoff Champions - Thanks to 67, 1075 & 2619
2008 MARC Finalists - thanks 67 & 226
2008 Great Lakes Finalists - thanks 66 & 217
2008 Western Michigan Semi-Finalists - thanks 2337 and 1504
2008 GLR Judges Award Winner
2007 Curie Division Champions - thanks 330 and 1270
2007 ARC Champions (13 and 0, plus scoring a double-keeper!) - thanks 1625 and 313
2007 MARC Champions - thanks 1732 and 1023
2007 Xerox Creativity Award - Western Michign
2006 I.R.I. Champions - thanks 71 and 1625
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-07-2008, 15:59
kramarczyk's Avatar
kramarczyk kramarczyk is offline
is getting his kicks.
AKA: Mark Kramarczyk
FRC #3096 (Highlanders)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 602
kramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond reputekramarczyk has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 6WD Chassis Stiffness vs. Maneuverability

Quote:
Originally Posted by kramarczyk View Post
A low CG certainly does help you withstand higher turning moments, but it does not help you generate them.

For those that have read Chris Hibner's whitepaper on turning (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1443), which is everybody I hope, it looks at the individual contribution of each wheel to the turning moment, so I suggest we start here. The moment is generated at each wheel by the coefficient of friction (CoF) and normal force (Fn) at each wheel. I think that the CoF is largely understood as demonstrated by the unusual wheel choices cited above. So what changes the Fn at each wheel? Simplifying the frame as a series of beams for discussion we can reference some stock solutions for the beams with 3 supports; based upon a uniform load the 3 moment equations show that the center axle would support 62.5% of the load with 18.75% for the outer axles. A snapshot of this eqn is in a previous post here.
Apparently that got submitted early... whoops. To finish my point...

<theory>
When driving on concrete (or a similar surface) my observations have been that the chassis drives very similarly to how this distribution suggests, however, when we put them on carpet it can be very different. Many attribute this to the CoF change on the carpet, but I think that the Fn also changes as the carpet compresses under the bot like a spring. (See attached spreadsheet.) This is why lowering the center wheels improves the turning of a chassis. Yes, the center wheels can be lowered to the point of rocking, but my 3+ minutes of bot driving time suggest that rocking between 4x4 cg aft and 4x4 forward is not a pleasant experience. A lot of folk do manage it though and they are amazing.

So how does the stiffness of the frame play into this...

Assuming the carpet is spring 'like', the deflection of the frame limits the difference in deflection of the 'springs' under each wheel which eats into the wheel drop. The stiffer the frame, the less wheel drop lost.

In working terms, a stiffer frame requires less wheel drop to move the weight to the center than a less stiff frame. Consequentially a stiffer frame is also more greatly influenced by a change in wheel drop than a less stiff frame. i.e. a more flexible frame is more robust to wheel drop.

</theory>

Unfortunately, the situation is statically indeterminate so I don't have a set of equations to conduct an optimization study with.
Attached Files
File Type: xls 20080703 - Carpet Compression.xls (26.5 KB, 92 views)
__________________
Mark

Brick walls are for other people. - Randy Pausch
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
Need pictures of chassis for 6WD team2061 CAD 6 24-12-2007 14:51
4WD vs 6WD SleeveofWizard Technical Discussion 3 12-01-2007 12:03
6WD? Alex Cormier FIRST Tech Challenge 14 17-04-2006 22:10
Torsional Stiffness of Extruded Aluminum Ben Piecuch Technical Discussion 3 19-01-2005 21:55
4wd vs 6wd? Yov Technical Discussion 22 06-01-2005 00:09


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:55.

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