pic: Whats going on HERE?

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Still don't see the point in this design.

This year's game does not benefit from torque...like, at all.

Just explain the purpose of this to me. Thanks.

If you decide to continue with the prototype or follow through with it, then I wish you good luck.

not so much torque, with the cims(going full on, out a toughbox) the wheels just spun and spun untill the forward momentum overtook the spinning and it went forward(about 4 seconds) we wanted to test soMething that we could just drive around and not have to worry about "easing it on" with the window motors theres' almost no slipping and nearly instant acceleration(yes we've done our math)

Originally Posted by iCurtis

Approximately how far apart are your wheels on the frame? With a 4 wheel drive skid steer, with the wheel centers about 30ish inches apart on the axis on the long dimension, and 22ish on the width dimension, our robot turned. We too had AM Gen2 shifters in low gear. We tried both pinning it and a gradual acceleration. In both cases it turned, although not particularly well. (Gradual acceleration turned better than pinning it)

hmm, that exactly how we had our setup...ill make sure to test it again on monday to see whats wrong(seeing as so many peoples robots could turn) i wonder what could be causing our problems?

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

going full on

There's your problem right there.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

There's your problem right there.

i know, but in the heat of the game, i'd want to be able to have as much control as possible as quickly as possible


and about the math, I dont know, but its definately faster than 2.3 fps....(maybe we had a strong tailwind)


and if we find out this wont work, its not that hard to switch to tank drive.....

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

i know, but in the heat of the game, i'd want to be able to have as much control as possible as quickly as possible


and about the math, I dont know, but its definately faster than 2.3 fps....(maybe we had a strong tailwind)

The thing is in the heat of the moment you'd just need to control your acceleration a bit. Make your acceleration progressive like go 25% then 50% then 100% throttle. Once you're moving a little bit you'll be less likely to spin wheels. And trust me, you'd rather spin wheels a bit and go 10fps than not and be limited to 4fps.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by thefro526

The thing is in the heat of the moment you'd just need to control your acceleration a bit. Make your acceleration progressive like go 25% then 50% then 100% throttle. Once you're moving a little bit you'll be less likely to spin wheels. And trust me, you'd rather spin wheels a bit and go 10fps than not and be limited to 4fps.

this could also be done in programming easily, if we decide to use a tank drive....we'd only have two cims(shouldent make any difference as the kickoff showed)


basically, we could do anything, its only the second week now....just prototyping i'd thought id share

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

this could also be done in programming easily, if we decide to use a tank drive....we'd only have two cims(shouldent make any difference as the kickoff showed)

Using a tank drive (skid steering) on a drivetrain built like a swerve seems to defeat the purpose, doesn't it?



o wait nvm i think i interpreted that wrong.

And yup, sorry to sound like we're bashing your design, just giving criticism. After all, that is the point of posting prototypes on here.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

this could also be done in programming easily, if we decide to use a tank drive....we'd only have two cims(shouldent make any difference as the kickoff showed)

Precisely, thats a good idea.... We're probably going to implement that as well. If you do a tank drive with a progressive acceleration then there's no need for a window powered swerve.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Precisely, thats a good idea.... We're probably going to implement that as well. If you do a tank drive with a progressive acceleration then there's no need for a window powered swerve.

yeah, what ever desicions we make in the next week for our shooter/harvester design, will probobly cement our drivetrain to one or the other.....


we could,just make a swere work with the 2 cims and have only 2 modules in the front? wouldent be as easy to steer though

[Akash Rastogi]

It might be a fun thing to try in the offseason, but if I were you I wouldn't risk spending that time and energy especially in the first 2 weeks of build. Some don't realize this, but loss of time doing something a bit odd can cost you a lot more than doing something crazy in like week 3 or 4.

Originally Posted by gorrilla

yeah, what ever desicions we make in the next week for our shooter/harvester design, will probobly cement our drivetrain to one or the other.....


we could,just make a swere work with the 2 cims and have only 2 modules in the front? wouldent be as easy to steer though

If I understand correctly, you'd just want the front two to be turning? Why not just make something like ackerman ("car steering") then?

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It might be a fun thing to try in the offseason, but if I were you I wouldn't risk spending that time and energy especially in the first 2 weeks of build. Some don't realize this, but loss of time doing something a bit odd can cost you a lot more than doing something crazy in like week 3 or 4.

Stogi Speaks the truth here.

It's better to spend an extra day thinking before you start building and make the best decision possible than to commit to a risky design like this and loose a week when it doesn't work.

That being said it's not a bad concept it just might not work for this game. The window motors would put a severe handicap on your speed and may not be robust enough for a robot's drive train.

[gorrilla]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

It might be a fun thing to try in the offseason, but if I were you I wouldn't risk spending that time and energy especially in the first 2 weeks of build. Some don't realize this, but loss of time doing something a bit odd can cost you a lot more than doing something crazy in like week 3 or 4.



If I understand correctly, you'd just want the front two to be turning? Why not just make something like ackerman ("car steering") then?

well that way there powered also, and we could just use two of what we have with some minor modification.....

and so far we've only spent two days on it, out of the week ....if you'all think its such a bad decision..its not that hard to just switch to something else...


as for time...its amazing what can be done in 4 hours when everybody is highly motavated and energized........

i remember last year, on the day before shipping, at 8:30 at night, we completely changed our drivebase from 4wd to 2wd with a castor and a unpowered wheel....


ps. this is what prototyping is for....