|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Mecanum or 6WD | |||
| Mecanum |
|
90 | 40.36% |
| 6WD |
|
133 | 59.64% |
| Voters: 223. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum or 6WD
6WD - higher traction, less weight, simplicity, comes in the KoP!
Turning radius - of a properly designed 6WD should be zero, it should turn around the center point of the robot the weight should be relatively centered on the robot. Yes - after seeing 2007 Edit: Simplicity because of less gearboxes, another plus is less weight because of that same reason. Quote:
Extra power - this is a misnomer. The same amount of power would be going to the ground, in fact in mecanum, there is wasted power because the force vectors work to cancel another wheel's. A 6WD should also require 4 CIMs. Last edited by James Tonthat : 09-01-2011 at 16:06. Reason: Reply to above post |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum or 6WD
Quote:
The only wasted power in a mecanum is due to the friction in the bearings in the rollers. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Mecanum or 6WD
I think he means in the sense that part of the force "cancels out" as it's applied in a direction the robot is not travelling in.
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mecanum or 6WD
Even with a frictionless roller, you're wasting power by squeezing or stretching carpet in the sideways direction while trying to move forward or back. You could perhaps argue that this isn't being wasted "in a mecanum", but it's definitely happening because of features inherent in a mecanum wheel.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|