After 5 years of continuous production and successful competition, including a trip to Einstein in 2014…we’ve decided to re-visit our classic Revolution design and make improvements throughout.
Modules are listed on our website now and will be ready to ship in the near future.
See the product page here.
Also…a short video of a recent platform built with our classic modules and a RobotOpen control system.
I think it’s great to see the COTS options for swerve modules improving. I definitely thought the design of the old one was out of date.
Although…
Am I the only one who thinks both the new module and the new platform they built are disturbingly similar to designs I’ve posted here within the last year?!
I suppose I should be flattered that this is the second time someone used the general concepts from the designs I posted online. My intention in posting them, was that some might get inspiration or use the designs, but I didn’t expect a company to start selling a design that is almost identical to the designs I developed…
This is a very bold claim, you should do some research.
-Aren
Can you specifically point out one design idea that is present in your design, the revolution swerve design, and no other previous swerve design?
The original revolution swerve (image) was based off of team 118’s swerve and came out in 2009. Besides for switching to smaller wheels, using vex pro bevel gears, replacing the chain drive with gears, this shares all of its design ideas with the previous revolution swerve module.
I’m surprised that the wheel offset doesn’t matter from a handling standpoint. I’m also a little concerned that when getting t boned the modules might flex and push the wheel into the bevel gear, they’re really close together.
My observation was more based on the large amount of optimizations that appear in my posted designs. Not on completely brand new ideas that have never been seen before.
The platform in their video is the same way.
I’m not accusing them of stealing my ideas, or even taking inspiration from my designs. But if they did get some inspiration, it would be nice to get some recognition, and if they didn’t, I want to point out that our designs are very similar.
It’s nice that the new module still allows the CIM to be place facing upwards, even with 3.25" wheels.
Although I would have rather liked to see a cim-in-wheel swerve to replace the wild swerve for that price.
The platform in their video is the same way.
Tough part is, swerve has been around a long time (2002 Thunderchickens?). The most popular/public teams over the years have been 16, 111 & 118. Nearly every design is a derivation of one of the two prior designs which are either coaxial or motor-on-module, and many designs go in similar directions simply because it’s a good idea. If you applied the patent office’s definitions for innovation, you’d be hard0pressed to find one that was non-obvious, or the next obvious logical iteration.*
As I mentioned in my last post, I was not accusing them of any mal-practice. I was just pointing out the striking similarity to designs that I have posted here lately. I’m not trying to get any patents, or money, or anything. I was just making an observation.
Get over it (and yourself…)
All of the improvements seen have been fielded by many, many teams.
I could accuse you of stealing my teams design, and then 118 could turn around and accuse me of stealing theirs! So on and so on…
Some of the pictures on the product webpage don’t seem to match the main product picture or the PDF. ( http://www.team221.com/upload/king_crab_detail.jpg )They apparently use the older revolution swerve design at least for this pic. (and I doubt that the new design would even work on this platform because it’s so much shorter, no height for a CIM)
Also the PDF shows the input as 3/8 keyed shaft while the product picture ( http://www.team221.com/upload/revolution_pro.JPG) has a hex input.
Uploading a CAD model would explain these discrepancies I’m sure.
I never accused them of anything.
I just pointed out that their design is extremely similar to some that I posted.
here is a picture of one such design:
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1653677_839578529427082_1837563549974002574_n.jpg?oh=2ca2f839e5a838315fee088d8482320b&oe=54D68A2A
The earliest photos you uploaded to Chief Delphi regarding anything swerve related was from August of this year. For 221 Robotic Systems to be producing this product now, that means that the design, testing, integration and final production of this module would’ve happened far before you posted your designs to CD. They did not in any way shape or form steal from you.
I know that they didn’t steal from me. I’m not sure why everyone thinks I’m accusing them of something. I have posted several times today, that I was never accusing them of anything.
11-14-2013, 11:38 PM
First post including CAD of a finished swerve:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1302113&postcount=1
Because of this:
Some of the pictures on the product webpage don’t seem to match the main product picture or the PDF. ( http://www.team221.com/upload/king_crab_detail.jpg )They apparently use the older revolution swerve design at least for this pic. (and I doubt that the new design would even work on this platform because it’s so much shorter, no height for a CIM)
Also the PDF shows the input as 3/8 keyed shaft while the product picture ( http://www.team221.com/upload/revolution_pro.JPG) has a hex input.
Uploading a CAD model would explain these discrepancies I’m sure.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Good observations. The image on the main page is of the original prototype. It had a 1/2" hex input on the vertical drive shaft. The production version sticks with the 3/8" keyed shaft.
The images of the complete robot are really just for reference. We just finished building it…it used a classic module. The new modules aren’t quite ready.
I will post some step files soon.
Am I the only one who thinks both the new module and the new platform they built are disturbingly similar to designs I’ve posted here within the last year?!
Many posters in this thread have addressed your statements. Unfortunately I haven’t seen your designs. I’m sure they are similar in many ways…as are most swerve derivations…but this is definitely a coincidence.
As for the platform design, I did my first one in 2010. I slowly modified and improved the design over the years. You can see our custom creations here.
You pointed out that your designs were disturbingly similar, implying that the Revolution swerve module had somehow copied yours.
- It uses a small diameter solid treaded wheel.
Excluding 2009, show me a swerve drive that does not use a wheel with a tread. Teams have been using small wheels since 2008 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64824)
Here’s a team using a 3" wheel: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/38289
- The wheel is off set slightly to one side so it can be nested by the miter gear.
See 148 in 2008. The wheel is off center in that design.
- It utilizes straight cut gears instead of a chain to transfer power to the wheel.
See 148 again.
Or this one: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/37005
- It uses a dead axle to keep side plates light weight.
See this design: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/34443
Or any 118 robot since 2005.
- The wheel axle is a hallow stand off to increase the strength of the module and make replacing the wheel easy.
See the old revolution swerve design.
Also, this drawing shows that their wheel axle isn’t hollow. (http://www.team221.com/upload/445-Revolution_Pro.pdf)
- It uses a single extrusion upper frame.
221 Robotic Systems has used this frame before you have.
- It’s CIM motor is behind the steering motor, in an in-line configuration.
Where else would you put the steering motor?
- CIM chain runs around the steering shafts to get to the main double shaft.
118 has done this in 2007.
Excluding this and Aren Hill’s in wheel CIM swerve, most swerve designs are very similar, or fall into a few categories.
I’m sorry, that’s not what I was trying to imply.
I’ll quit posting in this thread now, sense it seems like I’m just making it worse.
Alright guys, give him a break. I think he gets the point.
Andrew, I’m loving the updated design! Seems very efficient and compact. If I’m ever on a team considering swerve again it’d definitely be the top candidate. The updates have really modernized the design, and I really like that it shows off what you can do with mostly COTS parts.
Agreed with both points -most swerves are quite similar anyway.
I really like this design. It’s just simpler and smaller.
