That’s interesting, I didn’t think about printing the plates, I thought they would break easy, definitely going to see if I can do it now.
And yes, coolness and outright performance is the goal here. Our team is from the PCH district, a somewhat underdeveloped district on the technical side so it might be cool as a quirk of the team doing something that few have done soo…
I thought about moving the secondary drive motor to the middle like 148 did… BUT this was easier… if it turns out as a problem having the motor far away I definitely plan on moving it…
I love the analogy of a funny car swerve, as a fan of drag racing I’m honored, but also at the same time if we can get a performance advantage from this module I’m all for it
ITS DONE!! Well V1.0ish that is. Had to modify the gearing a little bit because the main driving pulley was rubbing up against the steering pulley. Re-printed a smaller middle drive pulley so that constituted different belts so on and so forth. Another point of issue would be flex in the plates, but I’m working on a fix for that.
Love it. I think more and more teams will do something similar in open-field games. A little overkill but doesn’t the i in MK4i stand for incredibly OP.
The ground clearance on those Falcons is a bit terrifying to me. For actual game-play, if your robot goes over something it’s not supposed to (cable protector, another robot, field debris, a cone that doesn’t like pushy-pushy, what-have-you), you might end up with some interesting lateral forces on those poor little fellas.
Yea… there’s a lot that isn’t optimal about the first iteration of the module. I think using the MK4i for the second iteration should solve this… I’m currently looking to re-CAD the three motor MK4i plate to have all of the motors inverted… but we shall see
So you can do that but you would either need some extremely complex mechanism to somehow accept 3 motors on the same differential, or you would have two motors that work against a single motor so it would be worthless.