DEWBOT VII Drive Train

From DEW Robotics
Revision as of 11:48, 1 February 2011 by MaiKangWei (talk | contribs) (Created page with ''''January 10th 2011: The big debate of the night The Drive Train. Pivot vs. Tank (6W)'''<br> Probably one of the most important decision to make for the robot. There were many...')

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

January 10th 2011: The big debate of the night The Drive Train. Pivot vs. Tank (6W)
Probably one of the most important decision to make for the robot. There were many pros and cons for both sides. Do you continue with the drive train you used last year, with the increased knowledge on how to build, program and drive it, and the added agility that come with but lose the 8 motors it takes and the amount of processor resources it will eat up?

Or...

Do you go with a simpler design, with can be created quickly, anyone can drive, uses less motors and processor, and can leave more time for working other aspects of the robot. However with this, sacrifice the maneuverability of the other option. While everyones input was listened to, the two main groups that needed to answer this were our drivers and our programmers.

The winner: Pivot, Our programmers and drivers were confident in their skills it may seem as a higher risk but will definitely yield a higher reward. We decided to go with what was our most valuable asset last year, agility. We were the fastest most agile Bot out there. This season is certainly shaping up to be a challenging one indeed.

Pivot developments since the 2010 season

2010 was 1640's first season using Pivot Drive. On the whole, the experience was very satisfactory, but there were some improvements which we identified as important. These were:

  1. The joint between the pivot top and pivot tube failed on two occassions. This needs to be made more reliable.
  2. The time required to change a pivot if it fails is too long. This needs to be reduced to 5 minutes.
  3. Setscrews loosen, and as a result the transfer axle tended to drift. A redesign is needed to prevent drift without reliance on set screws.

On 22-Nov, the team ran a Value Engineering session on the 2010 Pivot Drive design, which included a "Straw Man" proposal for a modular Pivot Unit.

Based on the feedback received on the "Straw Man", an improved "Wooden Man" (pdf) design was developed to elicit further critique. This "Wooden Man" design provided the starting point for the 2011 pivot drive design.