Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigDog
OK. I have settled on the trike design. Low center of gravity will make it nice and stable. One powered wheel that will also steer. Two wheels coast and support mass.
|
Imho, an obvious flaw in the trike design you describe is that only one wheel (out of three) controls all movement. If it gets stuck....kaput.
Individual wheel motors would allow for more traction and manueverability.
It also introduces some mobility redundancy (of course at the cost of more motor weight and battery reqts).
Quote:
|
In the field of view of each camera is a protractor that is attached to the opposite part of the rover (steering camera sees frame mounted protractor, frame camera sees steering protractor). In this way we can see the in either camera the angle that the steering is currently set to without having to use telemetry on a sensor. We can also derive the location of objects in the common field of view in fairly accurate 3D. If either camera fails we still have the navigational control that we want, but we lose some of the extras we get from having both working.
|
I think this will work well coupled with your idea of a "blind sensing" system that you described in the original "Hypo-xPrize" thread.
Quote:
|
The steering will be set with a lever to fix it at an angle and then drive for so long to execute an arcing turn of so many degrees. We then set the angle again and make the next maneuver. Every move will be well calculated and deliberate. I am going to start with the basic frame, steering, motive power, and the cameras as I have described and build from there.
|
I still think motor redundancy will add value. I would not take a 3-wheeler with 1-wheel drive out into fine desert sands, but I might consider it if the vehicle was 4-wheel drive (especially if it was AWD).
Quote:
My partner on Team Tuttle Park is my son John. Maybe we will have something he can enter in the school science fair this year. 
Bill
|
Cool, hey John.
