Crab Steering on Regolith

[cj.reeves]

you need to use momentum sustained in an independent body from the robot and then transfer the momentum to the robot from the independent body.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by cj.reeves

you need to use momentum sustained in an independent body from the robot and then transfer the momentum to the robot from the independent body.

You need to hit a wall or another robot?

[Dan2081]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

That is something I dont understand either. The wheels are molded from a uniform material and there is no tread pattern so I dont see how friction would be different. Maybe it is due to the plastics grain or something like that.

Yeah, I was playing with a wheel yesterday and the only non uniform part i noticed was the grain of the plastic, to me it seemed like there was a substantial difference between the wheel sliding inline with itself and it sliding along its axis


Well, now that I think about it, would just running your wheels backwards give u better stopping than turning your wheels sideways???

[dtengineering]

I haven't got my hands on a wheel yet, but those who have tell me that it is slightly rounded to give a "high centre".

This could cause the change in friction published in the manual section 10.2.4.1

Jason

Running the wheel backwards (dynamic inline friction... 0.5) would be worse than just turning the wheel sideways (dynamic transverse friction 0.10) according to the published values.

[Mike Schreiber]

Do you mean .05? or 0.5? for the dynamic inline friction?

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

That is something I dont understand either. The wheels are molded from a uniform material and there is no tread pattern so I dont see how friction would be different. Maybe it is due to the plastics grain or something like that.

I'm no physics master, but I'll take a guess.

Could this have anything to do with the coefficient of static friction being greater than that of kinetic? That is, when the wheel is in the forward direction it is rolling and therefore applies static friction, while the wheel is turned perpendicular to the direction of travel it slips and applies kinetic friction. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know if this theory works because the wheel may also be slipping while the robot goes forward as either way there is barely any friction.

[megaman_22201]

i believe that crab drive would be allowed because rule R06 reffers to the "normal" orriantation as the wheels being flat on the ground. this only means that the wheels cant be angled to the floor, it has no constraints on how the wheels can be in oriantiation to the robot.

in short, rule R06 states that the wheels have to be perpendiculer with the floor, therefore crab drive would be possible.

[Laaba 80]

Just a little advice for everyone....

Saying "I Think" doesnt mean anything. Right now the only form to find what is allowed and not allowed is the manual. Once the Q&A and the update system is started you should get things cleared up. If you get to competition and the inspectors say something is not allowed and you say you thought it was ok they arent going to care. If you think of ANY possible controversy over a strategy you want to use, look it up in the manual and be positive it is in compliance with all the rules.

Also, rules from past years games, or other sports dont apply. Dont assume things are the same as last year.

Joey

[BRAVESaj25bd8]

<R06>
...The ROVER WHEELS must be used in a “normal” orientation (i.e. with the tread of the wheel in contact with the ground, with the axis of rotation parallel to the ground and penetrating the wheel hub)...

The floor is a plane. The axis is a line. A plane is parallel to a line if they will never touch if their length was extended to infinity. This means the axis which the wheel is driven about must always be in a horizontal orientation. The purpose of this is to disallow tilting of the wheel. Therefore, R06 does not identify crab steering as an illegal system.

On another note, I also thought that crab steering would work, but for a different reason. In a car, drivers are told to turn with a skid when driving in slippery conditions. This way, the tire can grab and begin rotating with the direction of travel. I do not think that any type of steering will prevent sliding but I think rotating the wheels in the direction of the slide will allow the robot to regain traction faster. But this paragraph was just my thoughts, nothing which is absolute fact. As was mentioned earlier, no statement starting with "I think" should be considered as true without further investigation.

[yoshibrock]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

Just a little advice for everyone....

Saying "I Think" doesnt mean anything. Right now the only form to find what is allowed and not allowed is the manual. Once the Q&A and the update system is started you should get things cleared up. If you get to competition and the inspectors say something is not allowed and you say you thought it was ok they arent going to care. If you think of ANY possible controversy over a strategy you want to use, look it up in the manual and be positive it is in compliance with all the rules.

Also, rules from past years games, or other sports dont apply. Dont assume things are the same as last year.

Joey

That's all fine and dandy except for the fact that different people interpret rules differently. Finding out other peoples' interpretations can help people to make more informed design decisions before the Q&A starts. Reading the rule book can only get you so far.

And on a note pertaining to the actual thread....

I think (haha) that a crab drive has its advantages and disadvantages in any situation. In this years game, however, I think that the difficulty in controlling is already going to be such that it discourages a crab or swerve drive. Granted, we haven't leaned towards crab drive in the past, but this year while brainstorming we didn't even consider it. I'm sure some team out there will pull it off, but it'll take a pretty skilled drive team. I do encourage you to try however; that team might be yours.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by yoshibrock

That's all fine and dandy except for the fact that different people interpret rules differently. Finding out other peoples' interpretations can help people to make more informed design decisions before the Q&A starts. Reading the rule book can only get you so far.

Thats exactly my point. Interpruitations dont matter. The only thing that matters is what is stated in the rule book. I am bringing this up because I was a ref at our state lego tournament. We had a problem with the INTERPRUITATION of a rule that was allowed at various regionals. We looked in the manual, and there was a clear rule stating what was previously allowed is not allowed. I'm just saying dont guess on this type of stuff. Take the initiative to look rules up your selves, and if a rule is not clear, submit a Q&A, or keep up with the updates. If you get questioned on a rule at a competition and you say "well I heard on CD......." thats not going to cut it.

Originally Posted by yoshibrock

And on a note pertaining to the actual thread....

I think (haha) that a crab drive has its advantages and disadvantages in any situation. In this years game, however, I think that the difficulty in controlling is already going to be such that it discourages a crab or swerve drive. Granted, we haven't leaned towards crab drive in the past, but this year while brainstorming we didn't even consider it. I'm sure some team out there will pull it off, but it'll take a pretty skilled drive team. I do encourage you to try however; that team might be yours.

I was only talking about saying I think when questioning the legality of something. Offering opinions about strategies is fine.

Joey

[yoshibrock]

But before the Q&A starts during the first two critical days of strategy and design, a team needs to have guidance on wishy-washy rules. Knowing others' interpretations of those rules helps them get a general idea of the general consensus of the rule. I'm not saying they should stick with this interpretation of the rule throughout build season (they should certainly confirm it with updates and such), but an unofficial interpretation of a rule that prevents a standpoint in design is better than an official rule that causes many conditions to be built into designs and strategies.

In any case, this isn't the thread for this discussion. I apologize for taking up space.

[Dan2081]

You are forgiven

[Redo91]

My team was actually looking to use a crab/swerve drive for the first time this year. Upon seeing that we would be pulling a trailer, I began wondering how that would affect changing direction. Going forward was obvious, you are just pulling. But if you go left or right to avoid a robot or get where ou want to be, would the trailer cause the robot to do kind of an awkward rotation while it moved? And the trailer would jack-knife when trying to go backwards, would that cause the robot to want to follow it somewhat?

[JagWire]

I'm also very interested in some sort of crab drive for several reasons.

First of all, using a style of steering such as a tank drive, requires skidding to turn, automatically meaning you lose something like 20% of your traction. By utilizing a crab-drive style steering it could allow you to turn without skidding more easily.

It would also allow for a lot of flexibility, since just because you have the capability of turning each wheel, it doesn't mean you have to. I can see where multiple drive setups could be tested by modifying the way the controls operate. Three main ideas that have crossed my mind so far are a conventional car steering, a simulated tank-drive, and also a monster-truck type steering. All things that could be played around with.

I think that flexibility could be a very useful this year, as it may aid drivers to a great extent in being able to attain good control.

[Racer26]

I don't know, so here's my $0.02.

In years past, and I can already see it this year, people read too much into, and "lawyer" the rules. The rules are all there for a reason, and for the most part, the intent of each rule should be more or less obvious. The Q&A typically responds in line with the INTENT of the rule, and thusly, thats the basis we should be going on.

To me, the INTENT of <R06> is to prevent teams from utilizing the spokes of the wheel as a traction surface. It is NOT (IMO) intended to stop teams from creatively USING these wheels, in, for instance, a big omniwheel made with these as the rollers, or other creative uses. My interpretation is that the "normal" way to use a wheel is with the tread in contact with the floor. However, I'm by no means on the GDC, and thats for the Q&A to make the final call.

The fact that an omniwheel with these as the rollers would be enormous is somewhat irrelevant to the point.