|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Our first Octocanum prototype from team 2996
07-01-2016 01:37
AdamHeard
I'd be concerned about the slender shafts that front and rear of the cylinders attach to. They might not have enough stiffness.
07-01-2016 07:55
thedude019This looks great! Is the weight an issue? Ive seen some really heavy octocanum drives before.
07-01-2016 08:08
JoshWilson
07-01-2016 08:32
Ari423|
looks pretty cool, but I'm not exactly sure how that type of drive train is beneficial, could you explain? I've never seen or heard of it before, so I don't know anything about them.
|
07-01-2016 08:48
jnicho15What was your reason for putting the traction wheels on the pivot? In my team's design, we placed the mecanums on the pivot because then, when you retract the traction wheels, you don't need as much cylinder force to hold them off the ground. For traction mode, the mecanums barely need to be off the ground or can be slightly touching- the cylinders don't need to support nearly as much weight. In your design, the cylinders need to hold the whole weight of the robot up off the ground so only the mecanums are touching.
07-01-2016 08:54
Liquid_Science|
This looks great! Is the weight an issue? Ive seen some really heavy octocanum drives before.
|
07-01-2016 09:04
Liquid_Science|
What was your reason for putting the traction wheels on the pivot?
|
07-01-2016 09:06
JoshWilson|
The idea is that you get the best of both worlds: mecanum wheels for maneuverability and traction wheels for pushing. The main downsides are weight and complexity.
|
07-01-2016 09:38
aldaeronHave you thought of doing a single larger cylinder between the two modules a la Blue Cheese. Might be less parts and less weight.
What is your gearing for each wheel shaft in the pods from the CIM?
Are you concerned about deflection when the mecanums are down? Seems like a much longer moment arm around the rotation axle. I have wondered this for all the octocanum designs I have seen on CD. It seems like you would want to support the end of the axle that the pod rotates around with a bearing and have an external frame rail running the length. Perhaps the plate between the two pods is enough. Have you tried stacking weight on it to get the bot to 150 pounds?
Love the FIRST logo in the frame =)
-matto-
07-01-2016 09:41
Chris is me|
What was your reason for putting the traction wheels on the pivot? In my team's design, we placed the mecanums on the pivot because then, when you retract the traction wheels, you don't need as much cylinder force to hold them off the ground.
|
07-01-2016 12:45
JesseKHow does this drive train plan to handle bumpers?
07-01-2016 12:55
T3_1565I really enjoy looking at these types of drive trains. Back in my days these types of drives were never heard of. I made something to try and accomplish what this does.
These are cooler to see people make for sure.
07-01-2016 13:11
JesseK|
I really enjoy looking at these types of drive trains. Back in my days these types of drives were never heard of. I made something to try and accomplish what this does.
These are cooler to see people make for sure. |
07-01-2016 13:21
nuclearnerdWow, pretty!
I would really recommend extending the outer plates that join your pivot points all the way out to the front and back plates if you can. I'd be worried about cantilevering those huge assemblies off the side of a pair of bearings that are only < 1" apart! Doing so would also let you support your side bumpers for more of their length (the 2014 rules required support every 8").
07-01-2016 13:35
T3_1565|
You should provide a link. That type of drive train hasn't been seen since. It was really cool for its time, IMO.
|
07-01-2016 13:40
T3_1565I am curious though. Is there a reason that you need 4 cylinders to move the wheels? Can you put a push bar from 1 pod to another and use a wider diameter piston in the middle of the bot? That way you only need 2 pistons and less chance of there being problems with switching wheels?
As I said I'm old and not up to date on these drives lol. There may be a really easy reason why you need them seperate that I'm missing
07-01-2016 14:59
blazingbronco18Looks pretty cool. You guys got a video of it in action?
07-01-2016 17:12
Max BoordWhat was the reasoning for having the mecanum wheels on the outside? If you get into a head on pushing match you are likely to be tipped off of the colson wheels and onto the mecanums. Also why 6 inch mecanums over 4 inch mecanums and a belt or chain reduction to the colson wheels? It seems like that is the more conventional configuration and would allow for smaller and lighter packaging.
07-01-2016 18:35
Liquid_Science
07-01-2016 18:37
Liquid_Science|
Looks pretty cool. You guys got a video of it in action?
|
07-01-2016 18:39
Liquid_Science|
What was the reasoning for having the mecanum wheels on the outside? If you get into a head on pushing match you are likely to be tipped off of the colson wheels and onto the mecanums. Also why 6 inch mecanums over 4 inch mecanums and a belt or chain reduction to the colson wheels? It seems like that is the more conventional configuration and would allow for smaller and lighter packaging.
|
07-01-2016 18:42
Liquid_Science|
I am curious though. Is there a reason that you need 4 cylinders to move the wheels? Can you put a push bar from 1 pod to another and use a wider diameter piston in the middle of the bot? That way you only need 2 pistons and less chance of there being problems with switching wheels?
As I said I'm old and not up to date on these drives lol. There may be a really easy reason why you need them seperate that I'm missing |