View Full Version : Gus 228's 1.3 second Minibot
davepowers
18-04-2011, 20:56
What feels like Revision #28,659,844,355,346, we finally got it done. 1.3 seconds deployed. See you in St.Louis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbI-AEZWams
What feels like Revision #28,659,844,355,346, we finally got it done. 1.3 seconds deployed. See you in St.Louis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbI-AEZWams
Very nice design.
Good luck at St. Louis!
Congratulations! That is very sick. These ramp minis are very, very cool.
O'Sancheski
19-04-2011, 00:30
Love it.
Wish you guys had it at WPI.
davepowers
19-04-2011, 09:33
Thanks for the positive feedback everyone! Only 7 more days! :D
Wish you guys had it at WPI.
You and me both!
That's very cool.
I love it when everyone is saying that the minibot secret is out, and there is nothing new to be done, and then somone comes out with a cool innovation like this.
Nice job!!
I wonder how far you can push the "no stored energy" rule? What about a ski ramp solution with a 1 second pre-drop to build up speed :)
Phil.
That's very cool.
I wonder how far you can push the "no stored energy" rule? What about a ski ramp solution with a 1 second pre-drop to build up speed :)
Phil.
I wish this was legal, unfortunately i believe it would not be allowed... Maybe if you could make it at an angle where the minibot did not fall due to the magnet?
Chris is me
19-04-2011, 11:37
I love it when everyone is saying that the minibot secret is out, and there is nothing new to be done, and then somone comes out with a cool innovation like this.
Nice job!!
With all due respect to 228 and their well engineered minibot solution, the "ramp" deployment for minibots has been on robots since Week 2, when 190 and 233 independently competed with the ramp design. 228 and 190 were both at the WPI regional together, and I suspect they were inspired.
With all due respect to 228 and their well engineered minibot solution, the "ramp" deployment for minibots has been on robots since Week 2, when 190 and 233 independently competed with the ramp design. 228 and 190 were both at the WPI regional together, and I suspect they were inspired.
Sorry
I was just going by what I'd seen here at CD.
Didn't mean to offend.
Phil.
It's tough to be PC here!
davepowers
19-04-2011, 12:13
228 and 190 were both at the WPI regional together, and I suspect they were inspired.
Spot on, 190 was a very big inspiration, along with Pink. But i'm sure they weren't the only ones with the idea around week 2. But for our team, we are not claiming we came up with the idea by any means, we just tried to make it better.
s_forbes
19-04-2011, 18:29
You guys have a good knack for making very finished looking products. Can't wait to check it out in person in Newton!
jordie228
19-04-2011, 19:50
Finally!
Now how's that OI coming.... ;P
davepowers
19-04-2011, 22:30
Now how's that OI coming.... ;P
About that....
awesome job guys, we have one that can go up in about 1.17 seconds plus about .5 for deployment. what's the fastest one anyone has/has heard of?
crazyStone
20-04-2011, 20:17
we have 1.05 seconds for straight climbing, we are attempting to speed that up so we can break 1 second, and our deployer is also being reworked....
Wayne TenBrink
21-04-2011, 21:32
I am not convinced that this is legal.
I understand that your minibot provides all the energy for vertical movement - no energy comes from the hostbot. However, there is more to Rule <G19> than just where the energy comes from. It also requires all such energy to be
provided "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Section 1.6 of the game manual defines the start of DEPLOYMENT as the moment at which the minibot first crosses the vertical projection of the tower base (not when the clock reaches 10 seconds, and not when you press the "deploy" button on the control panel). The "blue box" advisory on <G19> states that "Energy for vertical movement may not be stored in the MINIBOT before DEPLOYMENT". It provides an exception for "incidental kinetic energy stored in the motors or wheels, but NOT, for example, in a flywheel". Nearly two weeks ago, I posted a question on Q&A asking whether the self-generated horizontal kinetic energy in a minibot prior "DEPLOYMENT" would be considered "incidental" (therefore legal) or "stored" (therefore illegal). Clearly, the minibot benefits from it. We were considering this approach and were trying to get clarity before the Championship. My question was not answered.
There is another Q&A topic regarding this issue. The response has been interpreted as an approval of ramp-style deployment, but the question is conditioned on "after deploying the minibot" and the answer also includes the phrase "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Perhaps we understand deployment differently.
R1ffSurf3r
21-04-2011, 21:41
I am not convinced that this is legal.
I understand that your minibot provides all the energy for vertical movement - no energy comes from the hostbot. However, there is more to Rule <G19> than just where the energy comes from. It also requires all such energy to be provided "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Section 1.6 of the game manual defines the start of DEPLOYMENT as the moment at which the minibot first crosses the vertical projection of the tower base (not when the clock reaches 10 seconds, and not when you press the "deploy" button on the control panel). The "blue box" advisory on <G19> states that "Energy for vertical movement may not be stored in the MINIBOT before DEPLOYMENT". It provides an exception for "incidental kinetic energy stored in the motors or wheels, but NOT, for example, in a flywheel". Nearly two weeks ago, I posted a question on Q&A asking whether the self-generated horizontal kinetic energy in a minibot prior "DEPLOYMENT" would be considered "incidental" (therefore legal) or "stored" (therefore illegal). Clearly, the minibot benefits from it. We were considering this approach and were trying to get clarity before the Championship. My question was not answered.
There is another Q&A topic regarding this issue. The response has been interpreted as an approval of ramp-style deployment, but the question is conditioned on "after deploying the minibot" and the answer also includes the phrase "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Perhaps we just understand deployment differently.
I cannot speak for theirs, but being legal in deployment isn't as tough as you may think. I can assure you that ours is completely legal in this regard.
Hilary has been telling me how hard you guys have been working to try to get the fast mini-bot, and it looks like it's paid off.
It looks fantastic and great job on perfecting a design like that!
Best of luck in St. Louis, we'll be routing for you back here!
I am not convinced that this is legal.
I understand that your minibot provides all the energy for vertical movement - no energy comes from the hostbot. However, there is more to Rule <G19> than just where the energy comes from. It also requires all such energy to be
provided "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Section 1.6 of the game manual defines the start of DEPLOYMENT as the moment at which the minibot first crosses the vertical projection of the tower base (not when the clock reaches 10 seconds, and not when you press the "deploy" button on the control panel). The "blue box" advisory on <G19> states that "Energy for vertical movement may not be stored in the MINIBOT before DEPLOYMENT". It provides an exception for "incidental kinetic energy stored in the motors or wheels, but NOT, for example, in a flywheel". Nearly two weeks ago, I posted a question on Q&A asking whether the self-generated horizontal kinetic energy in a minibot prior "DEPLOYMENT" would be considered "incidental" (therefore legal) or "stored" (therefore illegal). Clearly, the minibot benefits from it. We were considering this approach and were trying to get clarity before the Championship. My question was not answered.
There is another Q&A topic regarding this issue. The response has been interpreted as an approval of ramp-style deployment, but the question is conditioned on "after deploying the minibot" and the answer also includes the phrase "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Perhaps we understand deployment differently.
The GDC as repeatedly told us to look to the "spirit of the rule" when splitting hairs and parsing language in situations such as this. It is clearly the intent of the deployment rules that the minibot's climb not be aided by any external or stored energy source other than from its own motors. Having the minibot self-deploy using its own motors is not only in keeping with this intent, but goes even beyond it, in that it does not even use external energy to perform the act of horizontal deployment, as every other FRC robot does and is allowed to do. The rotation of the motor shafts and rollers "prior" to deployment are exactly the incidental kinetic energy the GDC has ruled as allowable. The horizontal motion gained is no different than the horizontal motion gained by every other deployment method, and is even more conservative in that it uses no external device.
skimoose
21-04-2011, 22:45
I am not convinced that this is legal.
I understand that your minibot provides all the energy for vertical movement - no energy comes from the hostbot. However, there is more to Rule <G19> than just where the energy comes from. It also requires all such energy to be
provided "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Section 1.6 of the game manual defines the start of DEPLOYMENT as the moment at which the minibot first crosses the vertical projection of the tower base (not when the clock reaches 10 seconds, and not when you press the "deploy" button on the control panel). The "blue box" advisory on <G19> states that "Energy for vertical movement may not be stored in the MINIBOT before DEPLOYMENT". It provides an exception for "incidental kinetic energy stored in the motors or wheels, but NOT, for example, in a flywheel". Nearly two weeks ago, I posted a question on Q&A asking whether the self-generated horizontal kinetic energy in a minibot prior "DEPLOYMENT" would be considered "incidental" (therefore legal) or "stored" (therefore illegal). Clearly, the minibot benefits from it. We were considering this approach and were trying to get clarity before the Championship. My question was not answered.
There is another Q&A topic regarding this issue. The response has been interpreted as an approval of ramp-style deployment, but the question is conditioned on "after deploying the minibot" and the answer also includes the phrase "after the start of DEPLOYMENT". Perhaps we understand deployment differently.
Our deployment is legal and follows designs already used at several regionals. The minibot has no stored energy other than the battery. The ramp imparts no energy prior to, during, or after the start of deployment. The only benefit to the ramp is that the minibot is allowed to accelerate without the need to overcome gravity immediately. More importantly, after numerous prototype designs, we feel it is one of the most reliable ways to deploy the minibot as it is already in contact with the pole via the ramp extension.
bdon2751
21-04-2011, 22:52
Just saying Team 2751's mini goes up in approximately 1 second not counting about a 1/3 second deployment. We also deploy automatically at 10 seconds. Look us up on Youtube our username is frc2751. See you all in St. Louis.
AdamHeard
21-04-2011, 22:57
Just saying Team 2751's mini goes up in approximately 1 second not counting about a 1/3 second deployment. We also deploy automatically at 10 seconds. Look us up on Youtube our username is frc2751. See you all in St. Louis.
Oh come on. This thread is about 228's deployment, hype your own elsewhere.
Our deployment is legal and follows designs already used at several regionals. The minibot has no stored energy other than the battery. The ramp imparts no energy prior to, during, or after the start of deployment. The only benefit to the ramp is that the minibot is allowed to accelerate without the need to overcome gravity immediately. More importantly, after numerous prototype designs, we feel it is one of the most reliable ways to deploy the minibot as it is already in contact with the pole via the ramp extension.
wow glad someone brought this up. I was just going to start a thread on this. So I will at least try to keep this discussion alive.
I hope to not be offensive but I want to point out a couple things I see.
First off I do not see how you can say that your minibot has no stored energy other than the battery. If we take the state of you minibot a split second before deployment starts(crossing the vertical projection of the tower) you cannot say that your minibot does not have kinetic energy inside it. Especially since the minibot is moving! This is the problem I am having.
I have no problem with the ramps as it was something my team was also planning on doing. However we were a bit nervous on the ruling and did not want to get an illegal ruling especially at champs
Given that, my interpretation is that a minibot that starts deployment from rest and goes up a ramp should be deemed legal (see 1678's ramp+minibot video) and is an elegant solution to the problem. whereas a minibot that starts accelerating before the start of deployment and has kinetic energy stored in it to go up a ramp should be deemed illegal.
Finally the incidental motor+ wheel kinetic energy is just that, motor and wheel. This means that that kinetic energy is not contributing to the kinetic energy of the system.
AdamHeard
21-04-2011, 23:19
wow glad someone brought this up. I was just going to start a thread on this. So I will at least try to keep this discussion alive.
I hope to not be offensive but I want to point out a couple things I see.
First off I do not see how you can say that your minibot has no stored energy other than the battery. If we take the state of you minibot a split second before deployment starts(crossing the vertical projection of the tower) you cannot say that your minibot does not have kinetic energy inside it. Especially since the minibot is moving! This is the problem I am having.
I have no problem with the ramps as it was something my team was also planning on doing. However we were a bit nervous on the ruling and did not want to get an illegal ruling especially at champs
Given that, my interpretation is that a minibot that starts deployment from rest and goes up a ramp should be deemed legal (see 1678's ramp+minibot video) and is an elegant solution to the problem. whereas a minibot that starts accelerating before the start of deployment and has kinetic energy stored in it to go up a ramp should be deemed illegal.
Finally the incidental motor+ wheel kinetic energy is just that, motor and wheel. This means that that kinetic energy is not contributing to the kinetic energy of the system.
Although many believe it violates the written letter of the rule, it certainly seems to meet the intent of the rules. The minibot starts moving under it's own power before "deployment", but has no external energy provided.
That combined with the number of high profile teams that have competed with this system so far means it's not going to be made illegal at champs.
R1ffSurf3r
22-04-2011, 00:05
only part of the minibot has to cross the perimeter before it rockets off, there are plenty of different ways to do this. our motors to not turn on until after the start of the defined "deployment"
That combined with the number of high profile teams that have competed with this system so far means it's not going to be made illegal at champs.
Boy I sure hope that's not the criteria for determining legality.
nikeairmancurry
22-04-2011, 01:29
I've heard many of teams still question the legality of this design, itd be nice for the GDC to just flatout say yes or no to ramp designs. Also I cannot say this is the best design. Yes 233 and 1114 have perfected it, but other teams seem to have issues (may not be exactly from the ramp) with this design. I'll take my normal bungie deployment that i know works and fast minibot. I like the design, but I see issues..
AdamHeard
22-04-2011, 01:32
Boy I sure hope that's not the criteria for determining legality.
My argument in that statement was that many teams that are well known have competed with this design, and were not ruled illegal. The GDC in the past has ruled things illegal after teams have used them at events, and this has not happened this year.
Chris is me
22-04-2011, 01:45
Boy I sure hope that's not the criteria for determining legality.
I see it another way... Consistency is pretty important. If we're told the line is here, I'd rather they not change it without notice!
First off I do not see how you can say that your minibot has no stored energy other than the battery. If we take the state of you minibot a split second before deployment starts(crossing the vertical projection of the tower) you cannot say that your minibot does not have kinetic energy inside it. Especially since the minibot is moving! This is the problem I am having.
Is there a minibot that does NOT have kinetic energy before crossing the projection?
Kevin Ray
22-04-2011, 11:54
For those of you who were around in 2002 doesn't this concern about the legality of the deployment remind you of the argument about the legality of a tethered minibot in that year? There were many threads back then discussing whether or not you could have a tethered minibot.
The main argument against them came from the camp of "we were thinking about doing that but decided against it because we felt it violated the GDC's rules". The rest of the teams who DID, in fact, build the tethered bots interpreted the ruled differently (correctly, as it turned out) and went on to do well in the competitions.
I think what is happening again is that teams are upset that they didn't go with an idea that they had and are kicking themselves for it.
May I recommend in the future that teams who have such a great idea but are questioning its legality build two systems which are interchangeable. One is the "hope it's legal and if it is it will be phenominal" version and the other would be the safe version--then you've covered the bases.
Is there a minibot that does NOT have kinetic energy before crossing the projection?
You need to understand that the kinetic energy of the minibot is being used to go up the pole whereas the linear deployments the kinetic energy is lost by banging into the pole. Big difference
And Adam, I mentioned that the ramp is a great idea and should be legal. However I mentioned that it needs to be implemented correctly. As R1ffSurf3r mentioned that team 233 implements the ramp in a completely legal manner.
only part of the minibot has to cross the perimeter before it rockets off, there are plenty of different ways to do this. our motors to not turn on until after the start of the defined "deployment"
So given his response this should be the yardstick that ramp deployments should be verified for. I would in perfect agreement in that case. However for any minibot that can accelerate to top speed before Deployment I have to see as illegal.
I am not trying to ban ramps altogether, I am just trying to point out the fine line between what I have seen as a legal ramp vs an illegal one
Alpha Beta
22-04-2011, 16:12
only part of the minibot has to cross the perimeter before it rockets off, there are plenty of different ways to do this. our motors to not turn on until after the start of the defined "deployment"
What makes a 233 deployment more legal? Does their minibot come to rest after it crosses the threshold of the deployment circle? Whether the wheels turning takes it across the threshold or some other stored energy mechanism the minibot still has some momentum coming into deployment. :confused: I just don't see the difference.
The blue box for ,<G19>...
<G19> means that HOSTBOTS are not allowed to launch the MINIBOT up the pole at the TARGET, or otherwise contribute to the vertical movement of the MINIBOT. Energy for vertical movement may not be stored in the MINIBOT before DEPLOYMENT (except that which is contained within the battery and excluding incidental kinetic energy stored in the motors or wheels, but NOT, for example, in a flywheel).
...seems to have more tollerance for GUS's deployment where the wheels themselves are being used to cross the threshold than a separate stored energy mechanism. I'd rule GUS legal, and 233 illegal based on what is posted here unless 233 can demonstrate that all of the momentum gained from the mechanism that deploys the minibot is dissipated before the vertical climb is started. There is no provision for incidental kinetic energy outside of the actual motors and wheels.
What makes a 233 deployment more legal? Does their minibot come to rest after it crosses the threshold of the deployment circle? Whether the wheels turning takes it across the threshold or some other stored energy mechanism the minibot still has some momentum coming into deployment. :confused: I just don't see the difference.
The blue box for ,<G19>...
...seems to have more tollerance for GUS's deployment where the wheels themselves are being used to cross the threshold than a separate stored energy mechanism. I'd rule GUS legal, and 233 illegal based on what is posted here unless 233 can demonstrate that all of the momentum gained from the mechanism that deploys the minibot is dissipated before the vertical climb is started. There is no provision for incidental kinetic energy outside of the actual motors and wheels.
Yes, I agree if 233's deployment system does not come to a stop before the minibot is launched then I would have say that under the rules it would be illegal. This to me would constitute the deployment system providing kinetic energy to the minibot prior to deployment.
As for GUS's deployment, and why I am having a tough time seeing its legality:
The problem I think everyone is having is that they are equating incidental kinetic energy in the motors/wheel to allow kinetic energy in the minibot. Incidental rotational kinetic energy in the motors is one thing as this energy is not actively contributing to the energy in the system. However with GUS228's they are using the motor/wheel kinetic energy to move a mass (ie the minibot). This in my mind the rules violation as it is clear in the video we can see the minibot accelerating before the vertical cylinder projection.
So my feeling is that for a ramp system to be legal the minibot should be at rest as it starts deployment. And if 233 does it this way (I still haven't seen a good video) then by all means this should be the benchmark for legality.
Wouldn't all ramps then be illegal? The ramp itself, which is part of the HOSTBOT, is contributing to the vertical movement by allowing the MINIBOT to retain the momentum it has going up, whereas a horizontal deployer doesnt contribute since all momentum is stopped before it goes up the pole.
Wouldn't all ramps then be illegal? The ramp itself, which is part of the HOSTBOT, is contributing to the vertical movement by allowing the MINIBOT to retain the momentum it has going up, whereas a horizontal deployer doesnt contribute since all momentum is stopped before it goes up the pole.
The ramp is legal in my interpretation of the rules if the minibot propels itself up the ramp. The parts on a ramp that could be considered illegal (depending on implementation) would be if the ramp gives the minibot kinetic energy by being sloped downward, or if the host bot propels the minibot to the edge of the ramp.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.