Has anyone attempted to put more than 4 modules in a swerve drive? I’m beginning to CAD one as practise and I want to do something that’s never been done before (so far I’m thinking a hexagonal frame with one module on each corner… and 2 6-775pro ratcheting gearboxes solely dedicated to drive {any thoughts/reccomendations on steering?} :ahh: )
I don’t know enough to give good insight on swerve, but my first thought is, that’s a lot of motors. You would have a min of 6 drive motors, then the steering motors. Gees… Heavy and power hungry, and most likely not legal with the motor number limits. Like I said don’t listen to me because I don’t know, those are just my first thoughts. Best Wishes. Heck of a project to take on.
But why? Seems like that’s just begging for issues to pop up here and there, at the cost of more weight and complexity. If you want a hex frame, seems like 3 modules would be the way to go.
1625 did 6 wheel swerve in 2010
It’s not meant to be practical. Just thought-provokingly insane 
Imgur is blocked by our school’s proxy. Is there a CD photo?
There are a few different threads on the topic. I believe 1625 pioneered the 6wd swerve so you may want to check out some of there past robots( especially 2010).
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98664
Dillon Carey and Aren Hill both have an incredible wealth of knowledge and experience with swerve so you may want to check out some of their previous posts(especially Dillon).
This paper: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2578 has quite a bit of information and pictures of the design, build and use of a 6wd swerve
Thanks man! I’ll take a look at that (and be sure to post plenty of progress pictures 
)
This looks a bit more like a crab drive than a true swerve. Best I can tell, each set of three on each side is powered independently, and they are all steered together. Still awesome
FTFY. I’m pretty sure they’re still the only ones.
Definitely the only ones to make Einstein.
So, since 1625 has already done a 6-wheel swerve, I will be designing a 10 wheel swerve in order to keep the “has never been done before” effect. I’ve got the amount of motors figured out (6 cims, 2 mini for drive and 10 BAG for steering) and I’m still keeping the ratcheting functionality. Will start CAD on the frame today.
I feel like independently driven modules might not be the most practical thing to do here. Impressive, yes, but impractical.
The only advantage I see to a system like this would be in a game where you wanted to use small wheels and have omni-directional drive, but didn’t want to bottom out on some obstacle. That and the bragging rights of course.
I suppose I can’t really judge though, I threw around the idea of a dual-tank “2-axis” drive a while back where you would essentially have a robot with wheels/treads on all 4 sides and switch between the pairs using pneumatics allowing you to change the effective front/back orientation of the robot by 90 degrees. Eventually I decided the extra weight required to build such a system would be better used elsewhere. :rolleyes:
So would 10-wheel crab be more effective? The ratchets on the drive wheels are my main reason for independent steering.
You may be interested in 1625’s 2011 drive then.
that would be quite heavy, expensive, and just not practical. if you wanted to make something different, try a kiwi/swerve hybrid. that would be pretty cool 
Steering-wise, there’s no real reason to be able to control the wheels fully independently; The advantage of having independent steering on a typical 4wd swerve is (as far as I know) the ability to rotate the wheels into a “position lock” orientation (angling the wheels so as to prevent other robots from pushing you while not moving), and positioning the wheels for “zero-turn” spinning without wheel scrub.
The latter of those two isn’t possible with a 10wd configuration unless you get really creative with how you position the modules. The position lock feature could be easily achieved by controlling the modules in sets of 2 or 3, cutting the number of BAG motors you would need down to like 4, if you weren’t using ratchets.
In your case putting a ratchet on the drive would essentially accomplish the same thing as the “position locking” wheel orientation and I don’t see how a ratchet on the wheels would be adversely affected by not having independent steering.
Neat. Granted the idea is a bit more practical if you’re not trying to do it with an already heavy tank track or 10+ wheel drive system.
This further reinforces what I tell students at kickoff, that no matter how absurd a design idea sounds, some team will build it (or something like it).
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, having the steering linked in sets of 2. I also fully intend on keeping the “zero turn” functionality, as I’ve also got a pretty neat idea for the frame
I would be more interested in seeing a <3 wheel swerve chassis design.