Looks hard to manufacture. I could build you one faster out of box tube that would work just as well.
Why would you use round tubing?
- You’re going to rotate things (you’re not; in fact, now you have to come up with some locking mechanism)
- You’re dealing with a complicated tubeframe that doesn’t obey clean planes (a la http://fsae.scripts.mit.edu/motorhead/images/c/c6/2011_frame.jpg )
- Analysis becomes easier when dealing with a crossection without a direction (are you doing the analysis? If you are, it’s still just as easy to do that with box tube)
Circles that go perpindicular to each other are hard. Box tube would make this thing an ease to manufacture. As would making the bogies flat and maybe adding an offset if needed.
Depending on the game, why is it necessary to steer the wheels? Would be surprised if that’s needed. Do some searching into FRC #33’s 2010 drivetrain; do something akin to that where they force a drop-center for normal operation and turning. If you drop the steering you can also consolidate your power plants/ gearboxes into one per side.
If you must steer the wheels, do something less silly than running a bevel gearbox that still leaves the motor sticking up and preventing you from doing 360 deg of revolution! Might it also be worth to just slap a COTS swerve module on every end rather than design your own?
The ‘averaging’ or tying-together mechanism is all-together skimpy. I liked something like the linkages you had a while back on something; I’d trust that load path much more than some miter gears that could skip and then your orientation is all wack.
In all, you’re basically downsizing a mars rover- which has certain engineering tradeoffs that don’t actually matter for your use. You’re not being inspired by it and taking this solution and re-implementing it in a more useful way. Understand why Mars rovers are built the way they are (they don’t have predictable terrain, equipment is extremely sensitive, sinking may be a concern, power efficiency is crucial).