|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
what we've been working on for the past week........
yes, there ARE 4 of them.....
any questions?
10-01-2009 20:03
I'm curious... What sort of numbers have you done on the plastic worm gears, and the amount of weight they're going to take? If I recall from my own off season tests, they aren't the strongest things out there...
Also, how are you going to deal with wire twisting? Are we allowed 4 window motors, and have you bought 2 more of the current years? We're not allowed any of the previous years, as far as my understanding goes.
10-01-2009 20:03
gorrillaswerve drive perhaps
really dident take that long to build 4 of them, we found these wonderful boxes that were just the right size.....
we put them under our 2008 robot and the worked great,
only about 40 pounds of pressure on them i believe, there just prototypes(our first directly driven wheel) we have other more powerful motors that we could switch them out for quickly if they dont hold up, only six motors used total(4 for driving wheels and two for turning them)
as for the wires,thats something we'll have to figure out later
ps.. it may or may not be, based off your cad you posted awhile back.....
10-01-2009 20:08
Sam2197ya have to wonder... what are the cims being used for????
10-01-2009 20:10
gorrilla
10-01-2009 20:13
|
we put them under our 2008 robot and the worked great,
only about 40 pounds of pressure on them i believe, there just prototypes(our first directly driven wheel) we have other more powerful motors that we could switch them out for quickly if they dont hold up, only six motors used total(4 for driving wheels and two for turning them) as for the wires,thats something we'll have to figure out later ps.. it may or may not be, based off your cad you posted awhile back..... |
10-01-2009 20:22
gorrilla|
I'm confused as to how this could be based off my CAD. I've never done a direct drive, nor would I ever consider it. If something breaks in this module, the entire thing needs to come apart to change it.
The use of thin plate for a module will allow it to flex a hefty amount, and deflection isn't good. A tiny amount as small as .125" of deflection will take your wheel's contact patch down by somewhere around 60%, depending on the size. If it's not rigid, you lose HUGE amounts of efficiency when turning. As far as strength of the Window motors, keep us posted on how they do. |

10-01-2009 20:29
Akash Rastogi
10-01-2009 20:31
Hey, just keep an eye on this:
|
<R51> Motors specifically permitted on 2009 FRC ROBOTS include: A. All motors, actuators, and servos provided in the 2009 Kit Of Parts, B. An unlimited number of COTS servos with a maximum output torque of 55 oz-in and maximum rotational speed of 100 rpm at 6 Vdc (e.g. HITEC model HS-322HD or HS-325HB servos, as provided in the Kit Of Parts), C. An unlimited number of FIRST Tech Challenge (FTC) servos (HITEC HS-475HB servos), D. One or two additional 2-1/2” CIM motors (part #FR801-001 and/or M4-R0062-12) in addition to those provided in the Kit Of Parts. This means that up to four, and no more, 2-1/2” CIM motors can be used on the ROBOT. |
10-01-2009 20:32
Mike8519Sorry to bear some bad news...
|
<R52> Items specifically PROHIBITED from use on the ROBOT include: A. Electric motors and/or servos different from, or in addition to, those in the Kit Of Parts, with the exception of those specifically permitted by Rule <R51>. |
10-01-2009 20:34
eugenebrooks|
ps.. we have 4 window motors for driving the wheels, and we have 2 other motors that came in the kit(not sure what they are, like a bigger more metalic version of the window motor?)
|
10-01-2009 20:35
gorrilla|
Hey, just keep an eye on this:
I'm not sure how you plan to drive your robot with 4 of a motor that we're only allowed to use 2 of... |
10-01-2009 20:39
|
]
and we know, we can only use two window motors, theres these other ones that are bigger that we are trying to make work |
10-01-2009 20:46
Vikesrock
I'm confused as to how this would work. If they are indeed crab modules you have 2 Denso Window Motors (1 left, 1 right) and 1 Keyang motor to work with with similar form factors.
What motors are you planning on using?
10-01-2009 20:46
gorrilla|
So there aren't 4 of them. There's two separate kinds. How are you planning to keep the robot speed constant with two different wheel speeds?
|
10-01-2009 20:49
Akash Rastogi|
another reason for the swerve drive is that a tank drive wont turn the robot(so we thought why turn the robot, when we could turn the wheels?)
|
10-01-2009 20:51
gorrilla|
Don't know how you tested that statement but it is wrong.
Tank drive turns just fine for us.... |
10-01-2009 20:54
Akash Rastogi|
on the FRP? with the trailer?
our 2007 robot wouldent turn at all.......maybe its just us.... |
10-01-2009 20:55
Dominicano0519you know thats not bad if you use those in the front to start and then kick in two cims after you get some speed to avoid doing a burnout almost like a two speed tranny
let me just take a guess
since cims are designed to continously run and window motors are not i would guess that you are using the cims to run a ball herding mechanism and using the window motors for drivetrain
10-01-2009 20:57
Dominicano0519|
Yup and yup.
Did you have your weight distributed properly across the entire base and over the four wheels? If not, then that's part of the problem. I'd suggest retrying that before you take a drastic design risk such as this. But that is just a suggestion. |
10-01-2009 20:58
gorrilla|
Yup and yup.
Did you have your weight distributed properly across the entire base and over the four wheels? If not, then that's part of the problem. I'd suggest retrying that before you take a drastic design risk such as this. But that is just a suggestion. |
10-01-2009 21:00
Akash Rastogi|
you could just back up into the trailer and have the bumpers start the turn for you
|
10-01-2009 21:00
gorrilla|
you could just back up into the trailer and have the bumpers start the turn for you
|
10-01-2009 21:01
thefro526
|
on the prototype there are(sorry if i dident make that clear)
the window motors are 90pm and the other ones are like 85 so it shouldent make that much of a difference(i hope) any suggestions? we could also use the globe motors if we have to..... just what we had lying around is what we used...the final version will absolutely be legal... another reason for the swerve drive is that a tank drive wont turn the robot(so we thought why turn the robot, when we could turn the wheels?) |
10-01-2009 21:04
gorrilla|
Let's put it this way, you might want to write off this design while you still have the chance. This drive train will be very inefficient with two different kinds of drive motors thats aren't linked together to equalize the power. If you really want to build a swerve with window motors as the drive motors then I'd use a coaxial swerve with centralized gearboxes to equalize the output.
Also something else to think about is that your robot is going to travel at about 2fps if you direct drive off of the window motors. |
10-01-2009 21:07
Akash Rastogi|
actually more like 4-6(we actually put them on a 2x4 and clamped them underneath our 2008 robot and drove it on the FRP and clocked the speed....
anyways.....its still a prototype |
10-01-2009 21:07
Ian Curtis
|
yes we did,
we had it in low gear(AM Gen2's) the wheels were just spinning(tried slowly accelerating and getting up to speed and trying to whip it around, to no avail)may be some other factor we're missing? |
10-01-2009 21:08
m^3We have a 4wd long test base and it turns fine on linoleum floor (no regolith); just make sure the wheels aren't spinning before executing a tight turn. I cut throttle before turning, can easily do a 180+ spin. We don't have a trailer yet but Dave Lavery made a post on here about exploiting the trailer to turn quickly.
|
And don't make a decision too early - a driver with about an hour of practice will learn how to use the Trailer to spin the Robot through turns and pivots with a lot more agility than may have originally been anticipated. As one benchmark, after a bit of practice I was able to take a standard kit-bot system with trailer attached and run it from one end of the Crater (starting with the Trailer touching the Alliance Station Wall) to the far end, execute a 180-degree turn and make contact with the far wall, and run back to the starting wall in about 12 seconds. This was repeatable several times. -dave |
10-01-2009 21:09
thefro526
|
actually more like 4-6(we actually put them on a 2x4 and clamped them underneath our 2008 robot and drove it on the FRP and clocked the speed....
anyways.....its still a prototype |
10-01-2009 21:11
Akash Rastogi|
But even if thats wrong 4-6fps is still really slow for an FRC field. It would take you 10 seconds or more to cross the field at that speed
|
10-01-2009 21:15
gorrilla|
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. |
|
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)
|
10-01-2009 21:19
gorrilla
10-01-2009 21:22
thefro526
|
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) |
10-01-2009 21:25
gorrilla|
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.
|
10-01-2009 21:27
Akash Rastogi|
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)
|

10-01-2009 21:27
thefro526
|
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)
|
10-01-2009 21:34
gorrilla|
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.
|
10-01-2009 21:36
Akash RastogiIt 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.
|
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 |
10-01-2009 21:40
thefro526
|
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.
|
10-01-2009 21:41
gorrilla|
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? |