|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
This is how we analyzed the available volume under the drive train due to the pivoting nature of the wheel modules. The tradeoff is a more stability and reliability in return for extra weight and a center of gravity that is more difficult to keep under the tipping threshold.
Also for reference of this drive train.
25-01-2010 12:12
gblakeDo you have a graph or another sort of worst/best case comparison graphic that would illustrate the difference in the path/orientation of the body of the robot when it is equipped with the pivoting wheels vs single wheels at the pivot points?
Maybe a graph of degrees of tilt vs the location of the CG (projected onto the floor) as it moves from one side of the bump to another?
That would really ice the cake for folks who want to make a comparison.
Blake
25-01-2010 13:54
JesseK|
Do you have a graph or another sort of worst/best case comparison graphic that would illustrate the difference in the path/orientation of the body of the robot when it is equipped with the pivoting wheels vs single wheels at the pivot points?
Maybe a graph of degrees of tilt vs the location of the CG (projected onto the floor) as it moves from one side of the bump to another? That would really ice the cake for folks who want to make a comparison. Blake |
25-01-2010 15:29
TannerWhat'd you make those models with? They're quite nifty.
Our team thought of another way using Inventor models of the bump and various robot designs and printing the bump on paper while the robot designs on transparencies. Not exactly rocket science, but our team members seemed to like the new perspective.
I wish I could find a nice way to do dimensionally correct physical simulations, but I can't really find any.
-Tanner
25-01-2010 15:38
sanddragAll you need is a 2D CAD sketch with proper tangent constraints. Then you can drag it around, change dimensions, and see if you'll hit.