I believe you and Ether are referring to different definitions of swerve. The standard definition of swerve in FRC is a drivetrain where each wheel can swivel to allow the robot to move in any direction (example). I think you mean that the robot can pivot around one end, which it probably can do to some extent.
Ether, since this a relatively novel drive that lacks the wealth of information available for other drives, do you think you could list some disadvantages of a drive like this (especially compared to comparable drive trains like slide, mecanum and skid-steer)? I’m specifically interested also in the speed and rotational limitations/capabilities of a drive like this. Also ability to drive straight and the effect of CoMon driving.
Based on CMP footage, it looks like the they used some sort of more standard 4WD in 2010. May have been a different year or a pre-CMP design.
The kind of drive train Jared is talking about is all over FTC. I’d say 100’s of teams use it every year and it works fine. Great maneuverability, but with only 2 wheels in each direction, not too fast. But that’s where prioritizing comes in. It basically behaves like a low power swerve.
Neither have I built or tested this drive system but I am not as down on it as Ether. The first proposed config is flawed but the second one potentially could work, depending on your goals.
The biggest issue I see is that traction is a precious commodity and half of your weight (proportional to traction) is on “undriven” (in the direction you wish to travel) wheels. That said, the same is true of many of the 6 and 8 wheel H-drive configurations I have seen proposed this year. My crude analysis is that it will perform worse than holonomic (mecanum or killough), much worse than 8 motor swerve and comparable to H-drive.
BTW: If you plan on carrying totes “inside” your wheel base, the 90deg wheel may limit your throat size and be a show stopper.