pic: Axially Opposed Planetary Differential Swerve



I tried to fit more buzzwords in the title, but I couldn’t get the integrated-software-defined-modular-blockchain-framework into the design.
(And truthfully the planetary bit is kinda a lie, this is only using the planets as idlers.)

The motors depicted are in an aluminum tube, which is static to the frame, everything else orbits the tube. Weight is transferred to the axle via the center tube, swerve forks are primarily for azimuth control. It is possible to snake the wiring for the lower motor through the tube. It is also stupid difficult to get a 775Pro to fit into this concept - there just isn’t space for a ~2" diameter motor between the two wheels.

I am only posting this because I feel the design has evolved way past what this can be reasonably used for to reverse engineer what I [we] are working on.

how does the wiring work on this?

how would the wiring work on this design?

Call it what you want, but to me, this looks like a small person.

So the wiring weaves in and out of the central tube, special care has to be taken in bearing placement. The wires run through the planetaries, next level sketchy.

This design may also fall into the “Swerve in a tube” category.

Im intrigued, I expect that those 775s will likely catch on fire as they are air cooled and in a tube, though it would be spectacular so the sadistic side of me says please please make this, I would love to see it in action.

My number one choice for constructing the central tube would be a tube laser. It would be simple enough to toss in some vent holes to alleviate the overheating potential of limited airflow.

The motors in the CAD are also something like 300 series motors… not exactly FRC drivetrain material.

If you or a sponsor has access to a tube laser (a truly awesome piece of equipment, by the way), then there’s a LOT more that you can do with this module design using laser cut rectangular tube profiles! The series of narrow plates bolted to each other at right angles doesn’t inspire a lot of hope for module rigidity as it stands.

I have some FAR more sketchy CAD if you feel so inclined :stuck_out_tongue:
This concept never made it past rev. 1, don’t dig too deep, I was more concerned with a complete model, so if I was to expand the concept out I wouldn’t be missing any major components, “getting the idea down on paper” as it were. As far as module rigidity is concerned I think it is o.k., not great, (the “narrow plates” only carry a moment and have no thrust loading). There are so many other things wrong with this concept…

p.s. I would sell my soul for a tube laser.