There is also the Kiwi drive. It is similar to the X-drive but uses 3 motors instead of 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nx6fvjjPHg
ye i know abt that- its a standard build insturcttion manual on vex
iām sorry what lol? torque and angular velocity are always inversely proportional under the circumstances i described
While most complex not to terrible to program the only hard part would be positioning all the wheels at the same angle. It really depends on how you want it to be controlled. In the end odomentry and PID/PD will be the hardest.
okā¦ letās start with this chunkā¦
when you say faster, do you mean the output axle has a higher angular velocity or that the actual bot is faster? cuz if you mean the latter you seem to be forgetting that wheel radius plays a part in linear speed.
a bot with 4m geared to spin with an output of 1000 rpm with 2ā wheels is slower than a bot with 1m geared to spin at 500 rpm with 5ā wheels, assuming there is negligible rolling resistance and sufficient traction in either case
as for this pointā¦ i think you are looking at this very 2 dimensionally. assuming they both have the same output wheel radius and output rpm, theyāll both have the same maximum linear velocity. iām assuming thatās what you meant by āfasterā. under the same assumptions, the 4m drive will go from point A to point B in less time than the 2m drive. this is because a 4m drive has more power that goes into torque, and since Ļ=sin(Īø)F (and F=ma), the 4m drive has more acceleration and will reach that max speed fastest (this is of course under the assumption that both the 4m drive and 2m drive have the same mass, which would obviously not be the case irl).
in addition, the forces working against this acceleration are relatively complex in comparison, and itās rather erroneous to assume that the losses in axle-bearing friction, rolling resistance due to viscoelastic hysteresis, and other factors donāt scale with the number of motors
again i think that youāre missing my point. P=ĻĻ. assuming you have the same external and internal gearing each time, having double the power does not suddenly boost your max linear (or angular) speed, just your acceleration. with that said, youāre correct that a 2m lift will move up and down more often in a finite time span, assuming you arenāt losing the difference in the two liftās power to energy loss factors like friction.
btw everyone is out here arguing abt torque. What is torque anyway 
Linking the wikipedia article will not help him understand it.
Torque and speed are inversely proportional. This means that as ones goes up, the other must go down. You sacrifice one for the other.
I want you to try something. Try pushing a door open from the handle. After that, try pushing closer to the hinge (away from the handle). Which one made it harder to open? The answer should be closer to the hinge.
When you push from the handle, it gives more torque, which is why itās easier. However, when you push from the hinge, you go less distance, though it is harder to push. This is the tradeoff.
Keep in mind that you do the same amount of āworkā, wherever you push from.
This applies to gears too. Think of the gears as multiple little doors. Therefor, when you get a bigger gear, you are pushing closer to the handle, while when you use a small gear, you are pushing closer to the hinge.
why not? thatās how i learned it
Thereās a lot of math there thatās pretty much unnecessary.
Itās certainly not the best way to learn it anyways.
there is no single ābest wayā to learn something. some people learn best with hands on experiences, some people are more auditory or visual learners, and some people are analytical learners. who are you to say that wikipedia is an invalid way to learn?
in any case, engineering is all about math. if you donāt like it, i suggest you look at another field of study.
this is under the iq section where there is only 1 omni wheel size.
ā¦and? the same concept applies for linkage mechanisms and essentially anything that is used to change MA. my point stands
Itās not about me. I love math. I learn plenty of math just for fun. Tell me, if you were a 6-7 grader trying to learn what torque is, would that wikipedia article be helpful? I can pretty safely say no. Would a 6-7 grader even know what a vector is? Itās definitely possible, but itās definitely not possible too.
Oh, and Iām sure everyone knows itās not all about math.
uh yeah it would be
have you even looked at the page? it says the same thing you did but more accurately and in more detail. if a student has questions about a term or concept they can just click the next link
you seem to greatly underestimate the knowledge one can find with some simple searches
everything breaks down into math.
@Banjo2rise
Do you think that wikipedia article was helpful?
āDepending on the gear ratio of the bicycle, a (torque, rpm)input pair is converted to a (torque, rpm)output pair. By using a larger rear gear, or by switching to a lower gear in multi-speed bicycles, angular speed of the road wheels is decreased while the torque is increased, product of which (i.e. power) does not change.ā
direct quote from wiki. literally what you said but with more details surrounding it detailing the math and physics. anyways this is getting into semantics and you donāt seem to be willing to accept wiki as a valid way to learn lol so imma just leave this here
ah yes one anecdotal will clearly show which method of learning is superior