pic: Another concept study

Originally Posted by CalTran

Shorter turn base?

I thought that, but it seems like a really small wheelbase then for only two 4" wheels.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

I thought that, but it seems like a really small wheelbase then for only two 4" wheels.

It's not too small. If that's modeled as the long side of the robot, that'd be somewhere around 12"-15" between wheels.

Originally Posted by CalTran

It's not too small. If that's modeled as the long side of the robot, that'd be somewhere around 12"-15" between wheels.

Oh, looked short sided to me.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Oh, looked short sided to me.

I might be wrong that it's long side. I just can't imagine doing octocanum for a wide robot.

[ENeyman]

Originally Posted by CalTran

I might be wrong that it's long side. I just can't imagine doing octocanum for a wide robot.

I'm not sure if this is the long side or the wide side, but in this render by the same person, he says that his team uses a mini-octocanum because they have a wide robot.

[ehfeinberg]

I guess that when driving with Octunum, you would drive it like mecanum with traction wheels. Thus you would be mostly driving with mecanum, using your traction wheels only if you need more traction.

Because of this, and with a much smaller wheel base, You might encounter some rock when on the inner wheels. Since you would want your main drive orientation to be as stable as possible, you could want your mecanum wheels on the outside. Also, for mecanum to work well, you really want all 4 wheels to be in contact with the floor at all times. If the mecanum wheels are the inner sets of wheels, during rocking, one or two of the wheels might lose traction with the floor impeding on your motion. (This rock might be negligible but hey, there is no disadvantage on having the mecanum wheels on the outside (And imo it looks cooler))