These are our pods. We are just waiting on 2 motors from andymark and sorry adam were not using vex sensors this year. We ended up going with one motor per pod for independent traction control. Any feedback will be appreciated.
You could have at least used vex encoders for the traction control !
Looks good, if you need any help with programming let me know.
Do you really need that much torque? 4 CIMs with a big reduction?
Those look like the standard Tuff Box© Gears to me? Thats just a guess though.
The output and drive sprockets look like a 1:1 ratio; the cluster’s appear to be a 12:1 reduction just from the looks of it. So yeah, basically tough boxes.
Ya its toughbox with optional ratio to give us a 8.5:1
Wow that seems like over kill when you have very low traction. We tested our robot and found that power has nothing to do with this game, even in a pushing match.
Looks good though
Au contraire! Power has everything to do with the design challenge of driving on the “regolith”!!!
The control of the power, how it is managed and delivered to the wheel is the key. Whether you manage it through software or through multispeed gearboxes, the team that manages it most effectively will have a big advantage.
Dana and Rosie,
Looks nice, that ring at the bottom really helps but needs to be a good bearing surface. Have fun!
The pods will be nested into a matching “ring” of delrin.
those look excellent, what i was trying to get my team to build but it isnt currently working.
Gearing them down does give you an advantage, because you will never reach a top speed of a high speed gearbox why do you need it? a slower one makes for higher torque at lower speeds, usually it is a trade off torque for speed, but if you can never get enough acceleration to go full speed trading off for speed is useless. You may not need the torque either but if it ever came down to it the torque would be needed before the speed.
Very nice! Are you sure this is the first time you’ve done it?
Those look very well-made, although the seem very large for the components they contain. I would have moved the gears inboard and tried to get things in a bit closer. That’s what we did on 114 in 2005. Swerve modules tend to take up alot of weight and volume, so the smaller, the better.
Excellent work by any means.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but you need to think about that statement a little more.
The reason you’re unable to accelerate is because you’re unable to transmit torque (rotational force) effectively to the driving surface. Friction (specifically static friction) is the limiting factor in how much torque you can transmit. Having torque beyond that isn’t going to help you much.
Applying more torque than your traction is going to cause slippage.
Those things are enormous! (and GORGEOUS!)
I’m curious, could you elaborate on some of your choices for doing this? Specifically, why mount the motor on the module?
Well we were looking at trying to keep the weight centralized over the wheels. We also were thinking about suspension on the pods, it would be only 1/4 in travel anyways to absorb some of the vibration on the floor.
One other factor on why the CIM is mounted in the pod is for the traction control system our code guys have been working on, each wheel needs it’s own motor and this was the easiest way to provide a full range of motion as well.