This is how we analyzed the available volume under the drive train due to the pivoting nature of the wheel modules. The tradeoff is a more stability and reliability in return for extra weight and a center of gravity that is more difficult to keep under the tipping threshold.
Do you have a graph or another sort of worst/best case comparison graphic that would illustrate the difference in the path/orientation of the body of the robot when it is equipped with the pivoting wheels vs single wheels at the pivot points?
Maybe a graph of degrees of tilt vs the location of the CG (projected onto the floor) as it moves from one side of the bump to another?
That would really ice the cake for folks who want to make a comparison.
Folks who want to make a comparison should probably do their own bump analysis with their specific wheel base and then determine their clearances/weight distribution based upon their own chosen manipulators. It’s pretty easy; you don’t even need the exact detailed nut-and-bolt model of the drive train.
What’d you make those models with? They’re quite nifty.
Our team thought of another way using Inventor models of the bump and various robot designs and printing the bump on paper while the robot designs on transparencies. Not exactly rocket science, but our team members seemed to like the new perspective.
I wish I could find a nice way to do dimensionally correct physical simulations, but I can’t really find any.