Why would the Rovers use wheels instead of tracks?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
I would think tracks would be a safer bet for navigating terrain. Granted, losing a track would about put it out of service since you can just go repair it but track technology is pretty advanced, I would think they could come up with something that would perform reliably.
So, why wheels over tracks?
 
0roo0roo

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
tracks are heavy, complicated, one part goes bad and ur screwed, and the rovers go very slowly for safety since theres a time lag of minutes, you can't run em like rc cars:) they arent risking any insane maneuvers that would require tracks. wheels, one or two can go bad and your still in business.
 
G

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
the wheel struts also fold up many times to reduce needed space, can't do that with tracks.
 
StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Energy eficiency, plus i would think that if they were landing this thing in the sort of terrain that required tracks to actually function, the powerdrain on the rover would be prohibitive anyway; so they pick a flat, easy place, and put wheels on it. You'll notice that the wheels don't even look to have particularly good grip, because I guess they're more interested in power conservation.
 
N

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Ever notice how in battlefield 1942, no matter how slow you go over a bump in a tank, the front end pitches up and down? Now when you do the same thing in a jeep very slowly, that doesn't happen. While the physics in battlefield 1942 are arcade like, it still serves as a decent example of why they chose wheels over tracks.
 
B

BigPoppa

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,930
0
0
Plain and simple: The wheels are used to dig. Watched something on Discovery about the Columbia prof. who was working on it.
 
A

Amorphus

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2003
5,561
1
0
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Ever notice how in battlefield 1942, no matter how slow you go over a bump in a tank, the front end pitches up and down? Now when you do the same thing in a jeep very slowly, that doesn't happen. While the physics in battlefield 1942 are arcade like, it still serves as a decent example of why they chose wheels over tracks.
Click to expand...

:p

when you're watching a .5fps camera that takes 15 minutes to get over here, the bump is a nonissue. especially since there's no martians waiting over the ridge. :)
 
F

FrustratedUser

Lifer
Aug 16, 2001
22,505
4
81
Originally posted by: Shockwave
I would think tracks would be a safer bet for navigating terrain. Granted, losing a track would about put it out of service since you can just go repair it but track technology is pretty advanced, I would think they could come up with something that would perform reliably.
So, why wheels over tracks?
Click to expand...

I would think reliability is the key reason. A wheel is very simple, what could go wrong with a wheel going a few mph?
 
Kadarin

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Ever notice how in battlefield 1942, no matter how slow you go over a bump in a tank, the front end pitches up and down? Now when you do the same thing in a jeep very slowly, that doesn't happen. While the physics in battlefield 1942 are arcade like, it still serves as a decent example of why they chose wheels over tracks.
Click to expand...

In 1942, US tanks didn't exactly have an advanced suspension...
 
T

TitanDiddly

Guest
Dec 8, 2003
12,696
1
0
Easier to use for folding the machine up, and tracks are an unneccecary complexity and one more way for it to break.

And watch an animation of it driving- the wheels move in such a way that tracks would be impossible. The wheels rotate on the Z axis independently.
 
FoBoT

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
tracks are heavy, complicated, one part goes bad and ur screwed, and the rovers go very slowly for safety since theres a time lag of minutes, you can't run em like rc cars:) they arent risking any insane maneuvers that would require tracks. wheels, one or two can go bad and your still in business.
Click to expand...

^^^

it needs to be simple and reliable, tracks are too complex
 
S

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Originally posted by: Shockwave
I would think tracks would be a safer bet for navigating terrain. Granted, losing a track would about put it out of service since you can just go repair it but track technology is pretty advanced, I would think they could come up with something that would perform reliably.
So, why wheels over tracks?
Click to expand...

I would think reliability is the key reason. A wheel is very simple, what could go wrong with a wheel going a few mph?
Click to expand...

Flat tire?

 
FoBoT

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Originally posted by: Shockwave
I would think tracks would be a safer bet for navigating terrain. Granted, losing a track would about put it out of service since you can just go repair it but track technology is pretty advanced, I would think they could come up with something that would perform reliably.
So, why wheels over tracks?
Click to expand...

I would think reliability is the key reason. A wheel is very simple, what could go wrong with a wheel going a few mph?
Click to expand...

Flat tire?
Click to expand...

they are likely either solid or liquid filled

some googleing might enlighten us
 
B

bernse

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2000
3,229
0
0
Originally posted by: NL5
articulation
Click to expand...
Thats it.

It can crawl over rocks without pitching the body around. A track just doesn't allow it enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom