If a team implements traction control, they will see an increase of at most 9.6% in the time it takes to get somewhere. Will this type of change really make a difference in the game?

Can you describe how you got this result? I assume it’s by calculating a max acceleration from mu_s vs. mu_k for controlled vs. non-, and running at that acceleration over the longest path possible? If nothing else, it’d be illustrative for a lot of the high-schoolers to see the math done out.

Is it an increase or decrease in time? If it’s a decrease, yes, it is by all means worth it. If it’s an increase, then it is up to your drivers; the advantage of traction control would be that your drivers would not have to worry about slipping. Most teams who have drivers experienced in road ice-driving rely on being able to feel when the tires begin to slip; this will not be possible, but the robot can detect it for you.

Whether it is worth it or not will rely on *your* team. I suggest talking to your programmers and drive team together.

Our testing on the actual surface with the actual trailer shows us that when you are not slipping you will get up to speed at least 30% faster than without and for turning it saves at least 50% of the time. Trying to rotate the goal or rotate aroiund the goal from a dead stop is brutal if you are slipping the wheels.

Actually, the first number I quoted was just a mental approximation. Here’s a more exact number:

Mu changes from .05 to .06 - an increase of 20%.

Force of traction = mu * normal force, so traction also increases by 20%.

Max acceleration = Force of traction / mass, so acceleration also increases by 20%.

Time = sqrt(2 * distance / acceleration), so for a given distance, a 20% increase in acceleration corresponds to 1/sqrt(120%)=91.3%, or an 8.7% decrease in time.

This doesn’t seem to match up with the results mentioned above.