DPRG List

 [DPRG] IMU Odometry Message index sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Previous message: [DPRG] IMU Odometry Next message: [DPRG] IMU Odometry Subject: [DPRG] IMU Odometry From: Kipton Moravec (SPEC Manufacturing) kip.moravec at specmanufacturing.com Date: Mon Jul 17 09:10:49 CDT 2006 ``` > -----Original Message----- > From: dprglist-bounces at dprg.org [mailto:dprglist-bounces at dprg.org]On > Behalf Of Sluggy! > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:55 AM > To: dprglist at dprg.org > Subject: RE: [DPRG] IMU Odometry > > > --- "Randy M. Dumse" wrote: > > > Anyway, I found it a surprizing oddity Ackerman > > results in differential steering at the rear axle > > after all the other stuff is said and done. > > Are rear wheels in an Ackerman geometry vehicle prone > any more or any less to slip than wheels on a > differentially steered vehicle? > If the front wheels are powered like some cars, they would measure better with less slip. Then the next issue is standard differential or positraction? Standard differential would slip more, positraction would slip less. In all other cases I would bet the Ackerman would slip more. However you could minimize it by powering all wheels and making each wheel track precisely how it should for the turn it is making and measure the angle of the front turn. You can probably do better than differential. If you just powered the back, monitored the back wheels with encoders, monitored the front wheels with encoders, and measured the angle of turn, you can probably do better than differential too. The biggest problem with Ackerman is the math is more complicated. ``` Previous message: [DPRG] IMU Odometry Next message: [DPRG] IMU Odometry Message index sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the DPRG mailing list