Thank you so much for all your suggestions.
I like the idea of using the mini-omnis in general, because you can screw in lockbars to the center of the wheel and totally reduce wheel slop. It’s useful when mapping out autonomous programs and the like.
PHRANQ was OP. Change my mind
we used v5 last year and we used 2 motors for our drive train and it worked wonders. what is great is that you can choose the torque and the speed you. and even on the lowest setting they were pretty fast.
It’s been two monthes since this topic was last used. Please don’t revive old topics.
I would disagree, scott15709 added something useful to the conversation, by saying that 2 motors works well, which isn’t an opinion you see often.
6 Likes
Our team built a X drive and set it up with cortex until we get our v5 stuff. With the tests we have done it has been pretty good at everything, only downside is that the angled wheels take some room away from the front which has caused our team some grief over where to put our dr4b. My thinking is with this years competition H drives could work but X and meca are going to be the best since it is a very skilled based competition.
1 Like
The drive depends purely on motor distribution, and the importance of strafing in this game. For a db4r bot, you’ll probably have 2 lift 2 intake 4 drive so you’ve got the motors for an x or meca. A complex tray, 1 lift 1 tilt 2 intake 4 drive also enables x or meca. However if your doing something a little more complex such as a tray on db4r for instance, 2 lift, 2 intake, 1 tilt, 3 drive makes x and meca impossible. In that situation, an H might be optimal or if strafing isn’t terribly important, a 2 motor tank and a floating motor for some other function. Pick the drive base configuration that best suits your robot’s needs. There isn’t one right answer.
An alternative to H on a 3 motor drive is 3 motor drive. The third wheel is in the middle of the drive and positioned forward.
I use a 26 wide 30 long base. It gives me enough space on the front to bulge out a little and the width is small enough to get cubes into the back of the wide zone, which is important to maximize score.
I would counter that by saying that @scott15709 Could have used a different topic about a 2 motor drivetrain. He likely referring to a relatively light base. Probably for turning point, where a light robot with few motors would be good for climbing up the platform. But I may be wrong, and I’m sorry if there was any misconception about what I was trying to say about them posting after a very long time.
1 Like
H-Drive, it’s simple, customizable, and easy to make.
I do agree with yo about that, however an H drive does however use an extra motor, I would go with a Mecanum drive, to acheive the same functionality at an H drive.
With good enough driving, you almost never need to strafe. IMO it’s just an extra control that’s rarely used. Then again, that’s just my driving style.
Good enough driving is even more efficient with an h when the driver can incorporate strafing into his regular movement. Choosing a drive that can strafe is generally for making alignment easier. There isn’t a terrible amount of alignment in tower takeover so strafing isn’t necessary imo but it could certainly help make cube intaking faster and if you have an extra motor to throw at an h, strafing never hurts.
1 Like
I can see a 6 motor drive simple tray being a thing with the tilter ratcheted to the chassis.
a 1 motor intake would be good here I think. It would be much simpler to do especially with a static intake.
Our base was pretty heavy. we did not use aluminum for our drive train
When asking what base you want, you also need to ask, how is our robot going to score? Because if the scoring mechanism has to sit in front of the bot , you’d need to design the base around that. Really the maneuverability of a x-drive/mechanum drive is going to be great for this season, however programming them can be a bit tricky. SO a great goto for most teams is a simple 4 wheel omni drive.