|
|
|
 Engineering still can't beat Physics! - Manoel [more] |
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating: 
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
| Engineering still can't beat Physics! - Manoel [more] |
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#12
18-08-2009, 08:57
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Strategic Uses of Swerve Drive
When all you're holding is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Swerve drive is not for every game. Swerve in general uses more motors, weighs more, and takes up a lot more real estate than an efficiently designed 6WD (or 4WD) base chassis. Yeah it's more maneuverable, but everything in engineering (and life) is a trade off. Sometimes it's worth it, other times it's not. There isn't really a universal consensus either - if there was we'd all have identical robots - so it's whatever your team perceives to be the ideal for a particular year. 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Swerve Drive | Team1710 | Technical Discussion | 11 | 07-03-2009 09:58 |
| Swerve drive 4, 2+2? | kirtar | Technical Discussion | 18 | 02-04-2008 06:58 |
| A Swerve Drive Question | lndnny | Technical Discussion | 10 | 20-07-2006 08:09 |
| 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 |
Threaded Mode