pic: Octocanum Module

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Yeah I messed up my math when calculating the torque needed to lift the robot. I will probably end up increasing the cylinder to 2" diam. which should be more than enough torque even with the piston where it is. I would go for a 1.75" pancake cylinder, but Bimba doesn't offer that and they're the only pneumatic company I've ever worked with.

You shouldn't need 2" - Bimba does have 1.5" cylinders in both square and round pancake styles. Remember that force goes up as the square of the diameter, so 1.5" provides twice the force of a 1.0625" cylinder (to within 1%).

Originally Posted by Ari423

Since the mecanum wheel is AndyMark and the pulley is Vex, there's no easy way to attach them and make it a dead axle. Sadly, AndyMark doesn't make an 18t pulley and Vex's 4" mecanum wheel doesn't support dead-axle drive. If you have another way to do this dead-axle, I would be interested in hearing about it.

You could pivot on the mecanum, which would make the cantilevered wheel the traction wheel which has a 42 tooth sprocket, if I did my math correctly. This would be easy to mount sprocket to wheel on a dead axle. This solution would also require a change in gear ratio of your gearbox - in the direction that it will probably get simpler and lighter. This would also make high-speed mecanum your "default" drive if the pressure goes out, which may be a good or bad thing depending on your game strategy/style.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

You shouldn't need 2" - Bimba does have 1.5" cylinders in both square and round pancake styles. Remember that force goes up as the square of the diameter, so 1.5" provides twice the force of a 1.0625" cylinder (to within 1%).

I knew I didn't need a 2" cylinder, but it was the smallest I was able to find that would work when I posted. But speak and it shall be so. I went back and checked, and this time I found the 1.5" pancake cylinder. I will probably end up using that one.

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

You could pivot on the mecanum, which would make the cantilevered wheel the traction wheel which has a 42 tooth sprocket, if I did my math correctly. This would be easy to mount sprocket to wheel on a dead axle. This solution would also require a change in gear ratio of your gearbox - in the direction that it will probably get simpler and lighter. This would also make high-speed mecanum your "default" drive if the pressure goes out, which may be a good or bad thing depending on your game strategy/style.

One of the big perks of octocanum for me is built-in mecanum suspension. I wanted to pivot on the traction wheel so we wouldn't have to worry about uneven loading. I agree that switching them would make it easy to do a dead axle, but that would take away a major advantage in my opinion. Would it be advantageous to add more bolts, a piece of churro, or some other cross brace between the wheels to better connect the plates instead of going to dead axle?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Ari423

One of the big perks of octocanum for me is built-in mecanum suspension. I wanted to pivot on the traction wheel so we wouldn't have to worry about uneven loading.

I don't see how the air suspension would compensate for uneven loading. Air (especially if allowed to flow among the cylinders, or vent when over-pressured) does not behave like springs do in this case. If you have uneven loading such that the weight on any one wheel is greater than what the air can carry, that one will drop until the traction wheels touch the carpet and compensate. At lesser inequality I believe it will lift the lightest corner relative to the others, but if you have a low CoG it will take a lot of lift to effectively move the robot's CoG to the geometric center and equalize the weight carried by each wheel.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I don't see how the air suspension would compensate for uneven loading. Air (especially if allowed to flow among the cylinders, or vent when over-pressured) does not behave like springs do in this case. If you have uneven loading such that the weight on any one wheel is greater than what the air can carry, that one will drop until the traction wheels touch the carpet and compensate. At lesser inequality I believe it will lift the lightest corner relative to the others, but if you have a low CoG it will take a lot of lift to effectively move the robot's CoG to the geometric center and equalize the weight carried by each wheel.

I was under the impression that if the mecanums were pneumatically actuated, you could tune the pressure so that the cylinders would have some give. Then the heavier wheels would compress the springs, and all four wheels would still have the same ground contact. Am I wrong?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Ari423

I was under the impression that if the mecanums were pneumatically actuated, you could tune the pressure so that the cylinders would have some give. Then the heavier wheels would compress the springs, and all four wheels would still have the same ground contact. Am I wrong?

Based on my dry-erase figuring (not experience), the air suspension will help keep all four wheels on the floor/carpet as you go over minor bumps and dips. It will not do much to equalize the weight carried by each wheel due to differences between center of gravity and center of geometry.

[Hugh Meyer]

Originally Posted by Ari423

I was under the impression that if the mecanums were pneumatically actuated, you could tune the pressure so that the cylinders would have some give. Then the heavier wheels would compress the springs, and all four wheels would still have the same ground contact. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are correct. If you supply air to all four wheels and adjust the pressure so the cylinders are not bottomed out all four wheels will maintain equal pressure and contact with the ground as the system travels over uneven surfaces. This is indeed a great feature of your design. This helps steering because if one wheel floats, as a ridged system would, the robot will not steer correctly.

You may need to pivot the cylinder to compensate for the radius as the assembly articulates. Otherwise it will likely jam.

Keep up the great work!

-Hugh

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

You could pivot on the mecanum, which would make the cantilevered wheel the traction wheel which has a 42 tooth sprocket, if I did my math correctly. This would be easy to mount sprocket to wheel on a dead axle. This solution would also require a change in gear ratio of your gearbox - in the direction that it will probably get simpler and lighter. This would also make high-speed mecanum your "default" drive if the pressure goes out, which may be a good or bad thing depending on your game strategy/style.

This is a really bad idea from a durability perspective. If you make the traction wheel the pivoting wheel, you will have to deal with a lot more sideways loading on the module than if a wheel with rollers is the pivoting wheel. This has been a documented problem in other drop drives (e.g. 148's 2010 drivetrain) and isn't recommended if you don't have a really robust way to deal with the side loading.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This is a really bad idea from a durability perspective. If you make the traction wheel the pivoting wheel, you will have to deal with a lot more sideways loading on the module than if a wheel with rollers is the pivoting wheel. This has been a documented problem in other drop drives (e.g. 148's 2010 drivetrain) and isn't recommended if you don't have a really robust way to deal with the side loading.

With omnis, I would agree with you. However, mecanums generate as much side force as forward/reverse force by design even when the robot is driving directly forward. With octanum, I'd consider the traction wheels as having less sideways loading under most conditions, probably only exceeding the peak mecanum side load when being T-boned. And in that case, the solution is to switch to mecanum and strafe your way out of the t-bone, or at worst into a legal pin that (under most years' rules) is time limited.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

With omnis, I would agree with you. However, mecanums generate as much side force as forward/reverse force by design even when the robot is driving directly forward. With octanum, I'd consider the traction wheels as having less sideways loading under most conditions, probably only exceeding the peak mecanum side load when being T-boned. And in that case, the solution is to switch to mecanum and strafe your way out of the t-bone, or at worst into a legal pin that (under most years' rules) is time limited.

First things first, if your solution to a design problem is to drive around the failure mode, that's just plain bad design. You should never have a robot designed in a mechanically weak manner just because the driver "shouldn't" have the robot in that mode when you expect damage. You can't bet your drivetrain on perfect play.

The strafing force a mecanum wheel puts on the robot is very different than the force of being pushed to the side in traction mode. When being pushed in traction mode, the full weight of the robot resists motion until static friction is broken. When strafing in omni / mecanum mode, there is no such resistance - the wheels are rotating and the rollers are allowing the motion to happen.

Finally, while you are technically right that mecanum wheels exert as much force in the sideways direction as they do in the forward / back direction, it is worth noting that this is ~70% of the peak force a traction wheel of the same gearing would put in the forward direction, assuming the same CoF for both wheels (which is also not true, all commercially available mecanum wheels have a lower effective CoF than most high traction wheels).

It is simply more robust to put the omni wheel on the pivot and the traciton wheel at the axle.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It is simply more robust to put the omni wheel on the pivot and the traciton wheel at the axle.

Again, no argument as stated, but Mecanum ain't Omni.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

First things first, if your solution to a design problem is to drive around the failure mode, that's just plain bad design. You should never have a robot designed in a mechanically weak manner just because the driver "shouldn't" have the robot in that mode when you expect damage. You can't bet your drivetrain on perfect play.

I wasn't so much betting on perfect play, as planning on the play I've seen (which has not included t-boning, for the record). Once T-boning was under consideration based on evidence of others, the defense is straightforward. Training for this situation would be included in driver practice, not left as something that we hope the driver would invent on the spot. In any case, we would design to handle the (externally applied) strafe forces of the worst case we expect to see. If 1/8", there would likely be no pocketing. If 1/4", there would probably still be minimal or no pocketing. As I've stated before: Due to our limited machining capability, our team's general strategy is to select material for our robot, not engineer it.

Our team is not planning for an octanum drive train, but if we did, we'd be at least as likely to have the mecanums as the "fast default" and the traction wheels as the "shifted shoving" state as any of the other three possibilities.

Also, as a final fallback, we'd design any "quad-drop" drive train to have predictable behavior should the modules be pushed by extreme strafe forces. It might involve a drive shaft pushing against a plate with unreasonable friction, but the outcome would still result in a fairly reasonable, predictable outcome.

[Ari423]

So what I'm hearing is either configuration (mecanum or traction wheels pivoting) will have sideways forces that need to be dealt with. For traction, the big problem is T-boning. For mecanum, the problem is the constant force being applied at a 45* angle. Can anyone comment on whether they think both the 1/2" Hex shaft and the 1/8" plates (without pocketing) would be strong enough to stand up to either of these forces?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

With omnis, I would agree with you. However, mecanums generate as much side force as forward/reverse force by design even when the robot is driving directly forward. With octanum, I'd consider the traction wheels as having less sideways loading under most conditions, probably only exceeding the peak mecanum side load when being T-boned. And in that case, the solution is to switch to mecanum and strafe your way out of the t-bone, or at worst into a legal pin that (under most years' rules) is time limited.

It's not the constant force of the mecanum or of a T-Bone. I'd be worried about that initial shock load when someone slams into your(2014) and you have pivoted the traction wheels down. You can only react so fast and you're not going to see every robot coming.

[Electronica1]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

It's not the constant force of the mecanum or of a T-Bone. I'd be worried about that initial shock load when someone slams into your(2014) and you have pivoted the traction wheels down. You can only react so fast and you're not going to see every robot coming.

Honestly, we never had an issue with it. Heck, only time we had down time was when fasteners backed out into the frame (and yet we still won matches at an offseason just using it as a brake). In my experience, it is better to have the suspension on the traction wheels since then you don't loose contact with the ground when pushing, while having suspension doesn't fix a cg out of place. In addition to that, it seems that having the mecanum wheel on the end of the pivot is worse for survivability than a traction wheel that is only in use rarely. Plus, you should make the traction wheel as small as possible to cut down on weight by making the overall module smaller.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Electronica1

Plus, you should make the traction wheel as small as possible to cut down on weight by making the overall module smaller.

Smaller wheels would also have the side effect of making that moment arm shorter. Reducing the torque is probably even more important than weight savings.