Subject:
|
Re: Looking for correct terminology
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:17:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
803 times
|
| |
![Post a public reply to this message](/news/icon-reply.gif) | |
In lugnet.robotics, "T. Alexander Popiel" <popiel@wolfskeep.com> writes:
> In message: <GzqM67.B2t@lugnet.com>
> "Dean Hystad" <dhystad@mn.rr.com> writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I built a little robot that has two wheels that are tilted such that instead
> > of being parallel to the ground the axles stick up at an angle approximately
> > 75 degrees to the ground. Tilting the wheels this way raises the effective
> > axis of rotation and makes the robot more stable. I have seen this done
> > before with cheap radio controlled toys that roll on two dish shaped wheels,
> > but I don't know what to call this configuration. Any ideas??
>
> I believe that that configuration is called 'negative camber'. It
> tends to get used on race cars a lot to improve stability through
> high speed turns, if I recall correctly.
>
> - Alex
I don't know if camber is the correct term to use here. If so, my robot
wheels have 75 degrees of camber, and the wheels are cambered in instead of
out (the wheelbase is really narrow).
It's really a different kind of wheel design. I'm not using the wheels in
the way they were intended, the robot rides on the sidewalls instead of the
treads. I was thinking of calling it an "inclined wheel" design based on
the similarities to the grinding wheel of an inclined wheel mill. But a web
search for an inclined wheel vehicle or robot has not found anything. I
know it's not new, so I don't feel right making up my own terminology.
Thanks again,
Dean Hystad
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
![](/news/x.gif) | | Re: Looking for correct terminology
|
| (...) I believe that that configuration is called 'negative camber'. It tends to get used on race cars a lot to improve stability through high speed turns, if I recall correctly. - Alex (23 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread: ![Looking for correct terminology -Dean Hystad (24-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -lego-robotics@crynwr.com (T. Alexander Popiel) (24-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -Adrian Drake (24-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![You are here](/news/here.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -Brian B. Alano (25-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -Dean Hystad (25-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![RE: Looking for correct terminology -Ralph Hempel (25-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -Dean Hystad (25-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Looking for correct terminology -lego-robotics@crynwr.com (Rob Limbaugh) (26-Jul-02 to lugnet.robotics)](/news/x.gif)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|