View Full Version : pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09
[cdm-description=photo]32423[/cdm-description]
Pjohn1959
20-01-2009, 07:45
So, no ground pick up this year?
its not in our strategy, but keep in mind this is just the frame. (waterjet cutters are awesome)
How much does that weigh as pictured?
It looks pretty light...
waialua359
20-01-2009, 15:14
How thick is the side rails of your frame?
With a lot of unanswered questions about the sides attached to bumpers and the cantilevered wheel questions, would that pass inspection?
The fact that the side rails are also lightened based on your cutouts, would that meet the bumper attachment rules?
My concern is that we have been discussing such options, but haven't figured whether it would pass or not.
whosdadog
20-01-2009, 16:33
How much does that weigh as pictured?
It looks pretty light...
its weighs 21.4 lbs.
whosdadog
20-01-2009, 16:35
How thick is the side rails of your frame?
With a lot of unanswered questions about the sides attached to bumpers and the cantilevered wheel questions, would that pass inspection?
The fact that the side rails are also lightened based on your cutouts, would that meet the bumper attachment rules?
My concern is that we have been discussing such options, but haven't figured whether it would pass or not.
we are planing on attaching the bumpers on the side rails, and the front and back bumpers on the front and back rails, which have a 3/4 inch top and bottom for the bumpers. the wheels are not cantelevered, we just have not cut the axles back yet.
also the rails are made from 1/8" 5052 alloy
waialua359
20-01-2009, 18:02
I would check with the GDC committee, as it may help answer questions for a lot of other teams.
The fact that your cutouts are "open spaces" which does not provide backing to the bumpers may be an issue. We would like to know the answer also.
The reason why we haven't submitted a question similar (with a diagram), is because we dont have a frame yet. The GDC committee already stated that 1/8" rails are not strong enough, and thus, wont be allowed either.
sdcantrell56
20-01-2009, 18:09
I surely hope the GDC is not referring to 1/8" aluminum when used like this. This frame design is plenty strong enough and will not cause the robot to fail. That would be utterly absurd for the GDC to tell us that now we must build our frame out of 3/16" or 1/4" aluminum plate stock and that we also can't lighten the material.
The GDC committee already stated that 1/8" rails are not strong enough, and thus, wont be allowed either.
Glenn, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the Q&A response (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11349) you're alluding to.
A simple flat 1/8-inch aluminum plate mounted on standoffs is unlikely to provide the required structural support for the BUMPERS.
There's miles of difference between "one particular implementation of 1/8-inch plate on standoffs may not be allowed" and "nothing made of 1/8-inch aluminum will be allowed".
Zultraranger
20-01-2009, 18:27
So who constructed your chassis, Motorola?
waialua359
20-01-2009, 18:28
That may be true, however, after reading Dave's response to Cory, I would interpret it as such.
Dont get me wrong, I love this chassis.
The worst part is doing all of this work, and it not passing inspection. It doesnt hurt to ask the GDC. If they say its OK, it will help alleviate possible questions that other teams may have about similar setups.
I truly believe that this chasis will withstand any situations during the competitions this season, but its not a matter of opinion, its what's written in black and white.
Specifically, we wanted to put a thick solid plate on every section that a bumper is to be attached, except small portions where our wheels were (to allow easy access for changing them-cantilevered).
I would find it very hard to believe that this would not be allowed, especaily because its flanged.
sdcantrell56
20-01-2009, 18:32
So who constructed your chassis, Motorola?
What is this supposed to mean?
So who constructed your chassis, Motorola?
our design team drew it up and one of our sponsors Harris and Bruno Intl. fabricated the drawings.
That may be true, however, after reading Dave's response to Cory, I would interpret it as such. [...] It doesnt hurt to ask the GDC. If they say its OK, it will help alleviate possible questions that other teams may have about similar setups.
You've uncovered a bit of a problem in the communication stream. Dave's posts may provide insight into the (twisted) mind of one part of the GDC, but officially they don't count for anything, and relying on them is foolhardy at best. On the other hand, history tells me I'm safe betting a box of Krispy Kremes that posting this picture to the Q&A with the question "will this satisfy <R08-M>?" won't get a reply any more insightful than "we can't comment on specific designs without a full investigation, so we leave it up to the lead inspector at your event".
I definitely encourage the team to try asking, but when you say:
its not a matter of opinion
...what we've seen so far indicates to me that, in fact, that's what it's going to come down to.
AdamHeard
20-01-2009, 18:44
Glenn, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the Q&A response (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11349) you're alluding to.
There's miles of difference between "one particular implementation of 1/8-inch plate on standoffs may not be allowed" and "nothing made of 1/8-inch aluminum will be allowed".
I don't think it's fair of you to criticize Glenn for being overly cautious in his interpretation of the GDC and Dave's words. With the bumpers rules and clarifications so far this year, I think it'd be wise to stand by "Never bitten, twice shy" (had to modify it a bit for us).
I don't think it's fair of you to criticize Glenn for being overly cautious in his interpretation of the GDC and Dave's words.
It certainly wasn't my intention to criticize Glenn, and I would apologize to him if that's how I came off. Being particularly cautious seems to be the ticket to success this season. My point is that there hasn't been any official word that "1/8-inch rails won't be allowed", and spreading it as fact has the potential to cause heartache to other teams.
Zultraranger
20-01-2009, 18:55
our design team drew it up and one of our sponsors Harris and Bruno Intl. fabricated the drawings.
when you say draw, do you mean a rough sketch?
sdcantrell56
20-01-2009, 18:59
I'm sure they mean draw as in design in CAD. We do the same thing and we design the entire robot in CAD and then export our drawings for our sponsors to fabricate the parts using their CNC machines
when you say draw, do you mean a rough sketch?
If the drawings were fabricated, it means that they were most likely full-on machining drawings.
If you turn this thread into a "mentor/sponsor-built vs. student built", then be warned: bad things happen.
AdamHeard
20-01-2009, 18:59
when you say draw, do you mean a rough sketch?
They probably drew it in a CAD program and gave the files to the sponsors to fabricate.
What does your comment about Motorola mean? Are you referring to 111?
waialua359
20-01-2009, 19:06
Dont worry guys, its all good!
Part of my comment was to encourage team(s) to post more questions for clarification.
Everytime, we think we made a good enough accomodation to meet the rules, another post comes out that makes us question our frame idea.
This is why we haven't committed to a final design yet and instead have been working on our "Z-axis mechanism."
**Remember what happened last season with all of these inspectors not knowing game and robot rules. The questions, headaches, and different interpretations is sure to make headlines again this season.**
when you say draw, do you mean a rough sketch?
not a rough sketch a mechanicle drawing on autocad. they did nothing but give us a little machine time.
Zultraranger
20-01-2009, 20:30
If the drawings were fabricated, it means that they were most likely full-on machining drawings.
If you turn this thread into a "mentor/sponsor-built vs. student built", then be warned: bad things happen.
Eric, what if I am turning this into a sponsor-built vs. student built argument, I laugh at your empty threats.
sdcantrell56
20-01-2009, 20:34
Honestly if you want to discuss student versus sponsor manufactured robots and the inner workings of individual teams post it in another thread already talking about it. This isn't the place to do it. Plus every team is different and as such you cannot determine what is the right way to set up another team.
Eric, what if I am turning this into a sponsor-built vs. student built argument, I laugh at your empty threats.
1) Every thread on that topic has been closed or moderated to date.
2) At least half the long-time veterans can give a lot of negative reputation--and they may or may not choose to use it.
3) It's off-topic. If you want to have that debate (again), please start a new thread. That way the rest of us can constructively critique a frame instead of debating with those who want to.
On to the frame: are you only going with a 2WD, or will there be chain runs (or magic) to other wheels?
Zultraranger
20-01-2009, 20:37
1) Every thread on that topic has been closed or moderated to date.
2) At least half the long-time veterans can give a lot of negative reputation--and they may or may not choose to use it.
3) It's off-topic. If you want to have that debate (again), please start a new thread. That way the rest of us can constructively critique a frame instead of debating with those who want to.
On to the frame: are you only going with a 2WD, or will there be chain runs (or magic) to other wheels?
Your checklist is cute.
Alright, to the PMs we go!
1) Every thread on that topic has been closed or moderated to date.
2) At least half the long-time veterans can give a lot of negative reputation--and they may or may not choose to use it.
3) It's off-topic. If you want to have that debate (again), please start a new thread. That way the rest of us can constructively critique a frame instead of debating with those who want to.
On to the frame: are you only going with a 2WD, or will there be chain runs (or magic) to other wheels?
the drivetrain is 4WD the back wheels are direct driven with chains running up to the front. It should be a pretty awesome machine, once we have the scoring mechinisms fabricated and attached. to be honest we are still prototyping some things.
Your checklist is cute.
Alright, to the PMs we go!
EricH I think that zultraranger is just jelous of 295s chassis
Akash Rastogi
20-01-2009, 23:19
EricH I think that zultraranger is just jelous of 295s chassis
Lol, I am. :cool:
Lookin really good.
Ian Curtis
20-01-2009, 23:25
Nice chassis guys! Do the rear axles extend beyond the frame? If so, why?
On a side note, I was pretty surprised that the GDC responded to the 1/8th flat bar question. It seems like that has the potential to open up a whole new can of interpretation worms.
Pssst... Can we ignore these Zultraranger comments? If the thread gets dragged in that direction it might get locked, and it's such a nice frame!
the axles do not extend beyond the outside rail in real life, they will be anglegrinded down tomorow. we are currently waiting on the GDCs ruling, on the legality of this setup. we have some solutions to fix it, however they require a little more waterjet time, so we will see.
waialua359
20-01-2009, 23:57
That would be very useful for you to post that info.
It will definitely steer other teams in the right direction.
That would be very useful for you to post that info.
It will definitely steer other teams in the right direction.
what information do you mean, the way we plan to make our chassis useful? we plan on holding it on with some struts.
Tom Line
21-01-2009, 07:09
I believe he's asking where/what facility the beautiful machining work was done.
Harris & Bruno Intl. is the sponsor/machine shop that helped our team through the CACT program.
so we are awaitng the GDCs ruling, we have submitted our question, regaurding our chassis legality
waialua359
21-01-2009, 22:08
Hope they provide an answer and accept it as a legal chassis.:D
After a lot of articulation and debates, our team already started working on a solid rectangular tube backing today with provisions to remove easily.
Thus, our cantilevered wheels will be easy access for repair/replacement.
as of the last team update I believe that our chassis will be legal, just in case we will have some new plates milled from a metric sheet we have, that is like just a little more then 1/8th. because it will be the same as 1/8, but its not.:cool:
also now that we have both of our twins driving it is really interesting how well they drive with trailers, our tank drive is long but the front wheals do not stick out as far as the back, which really improves our turning. we were drifting and everything. I am not sure why but it drives much better then the 2007 robot on regolith. but I think it has to do with the differnce in axle lenghtes from front to back
from the gdc last answer i think we are in the clear
Jared Russell
26-01-2009, 09:35
I'm not sure why any rulings on bumper backings were ever necessary on the GDC's part. They made it abundantly clear that there would be high-speed collisions this season. A damaged frame seems to be a fair price for not heeding their warning.
And I agree with the posters here that the frame pictured should be able to withstand anything another robot can throw at it this year.
Sean Raia
31-01-2009, 17:15
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
waialua359
31-01-2009, 17:20
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
Have you watched kickoff?
Dave made it pretty clear on the importance of having mentors.
I also dont think its clear cut and dry on who does the work for any team.
I'm sure teams in general try to incorporate as much student ownership as possible.
Brandon Holley
31-01-2009, 17:22
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
Don't you think the wise decision would then be to not make that comment in THIS thread and either PM the person you are directing your comment at, or start a new thread to talk about that specific topic??
Anyways,
Love the chassis 295...they look really nice
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
A friendly reminder from the CD moderator crew:
Confine discussion in this thread to the topic at hand-295's frame. Not who built 295's frame, or whether it's good or bad that it was done that way.
If you wish to address that topic, search the forums for other threads which exist for that purpose.
sdcantrell56
31-01-2009, 19:21
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
Plus this is an exact representation of industry. Many companies do not have the machinery to fabricate many of their products, and as such, the company must contract out to a fab shop to have their parts created. We do the exact same thing and I don't see how having a shop laser cut parts that the students design that could not be manufactured any other way is against the beliefs of FIRST. The purpose of FIRST is to inspire students to go into science and engineering fields and having someone fabricate parts in no way diminishes this aspect.
GaryVoshol
01-02-2009, 12:01
Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.
If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.
So I guess you think there should be no kit of parts? After all, someone is buying all that stuff for the teams, they're not building it themselves. (And sorry for dragging this thread off-topic again.)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.