Multi-faceted drive train?

[mrjones2014]

I couldn't find any rules about it, but I wanted to make sure; is it legal to have wheels on more than one side of the robot, so that if it tips, you can still compete further in the match? Probably not a great idea, but just for curiosity's sake.

[Jared Russell]

We can't answer the question, because the 2012 FRC rules have not been released :) You would have to look at the rules very, very carefully in order to see if this is legal. Pay special attention to bumper and team-number orientation rules.

Aside from the rules question, there is some precedent for this sort of thing... http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35499

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I couldn't find any rules about it, but I wanted to make sure; is it legal to have wheels on more than one side of the robot, so that if it tips, you can still compete further in the match? Probably not a great idea, but just for curiosity's sake.

While in 2011 there was no rule prohibiting robots having multiple orientations, the rules for bumpers did make it very difficult to implement.

[DonRotolo]

2 years ago, tipping over was a real possibility. Our efforts focused on designing a robot that would not be able to tip over. And indeed, it could not.

[Walter Deitzler]

I would build one just to say I did it. :D

[Taylor]

2 years ago, tipping over was a real possibility. Our efforts focused on designing a robot that would not be able to tip over. And indeed, it could not.

There were other robots that could, and did, tip over - however they self-righted either by extending an arm or having a rounded top.
I called them Weeblebots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0OQBdIhsc).

[Basel A]

In 2010, there were teams that could do what you're talking about. I recall one in particular we saw on Curie at the Championships. I tried to look them up for a few hours earlier today, but simply couldn't find them. They were an 8wd: 4 on the bottom and 4 on top. The top wheels spun with the bottom.

tl;dr it's been done

[Hawiian Cadder]

it is possible to make a robot that is only stable on one "face" and therefor self rights.

[davepowers]

What about the old flop bots? In 2002 team 71 made, "The Beast" It fell over on purpose at the beginning of the match. The video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJSrgB2FWEk).

-Dave

[Taylor]

Flopbots were fun but within the past three years or so disallowed by bumper rules and others (some directly outlawing flopbots). However, we haven't seen the 2012 rules yet. They may allow flopbots but disallow mechanical fasteners.

[PAR_WIG1350]

In 2010, there were teams that could do what you're talking about. I recall one in particular we saw on Curie at the Championships. I tried to look them up for a few hours earlier today, but simply couldn't find them. They were an 8wd: 4 on the bottom and 4 on top. The top wheels spun with the bottom.

tl;dr it's been done

1350, the Rambots (us)!

Don't do it unless you have enough people that you can have subteams to work out how to make it all work. It is hard, but it can be done. That being said, make sure you would really rather put a good portion of your time into making everything (or at least the frame and drive system) double sided when you could be making the existing, single sided mechanisms better.

I have a ton of advice I could give to anybody attempting this. Here are a few samples:

It will be heavy, even if it is short, allow both sides to share as many mechanisms as possible! Duplicated mechanisms only work on one side, they are dead weight on the other.

The lower the bumper zone is, the shorter the robot will be. The maximum robot height for such a system is [(bumper zone upper limit)x2]-(regulation bumper height). The high bumper zone in 2010 allowed us to put some of our electronics in places that would otherwise be occupied by the drive train, and it was incredibly crowded inside the robot. A lower bumper zone would force the drive system to occupy a lot of precious space and further crowd the robot's interior.

If anybody attempts to do this, and wants more tips or pointers, they should PM me. (provide a link to this thread in the message please)



it is possible to make a robot that is only stable on one "face" and therefor self rights.


Yes, Hexbug nanos have that capability, I believe, although they are much smaller. The main issue is that the bumpers get in the way of the geometry that allows for passive righting. the 2011 rules would have allowed for a folding frame that opened up past the frame perimeter to form the necessary profile, but the field was to flat for anybody to attempt it.

[akoscielski3]

the 2011 rules would have allowed for a folding frame that opened up past the frame perimeter to form the necessary profile, but the field was to flat for anybody to attempt it.

What do you mean? Team 3553 made a folding defensive robot.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96515&highlight=dragonfly

[avanboekel]

In 2010, there were teams that could do what you're talking about. I recall one in particular we saw on Curie at the Championships. I tried to look them up for a few hours earlier today, but simply couldn't find them. They were an 8wd: 4 on the bottom and 4 on top. The top wheels spun with the bottom.

tl;dr it's been done
I believe that 101, striker, did this as well. I don't know if they went to champs in 2010 though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouLBh7oiZxo

[Al Skierkiewicz]

At least one team had a robot that could orient itself in either way. The great thing is their team number is 101 so with the right font, their team number was readable in any orientation.
Flop down bots have been made illegal simply due to the damage that can be done to a sub floor in some venues. Imagine 150 lbs of metal crashing down on a wooden gym floor. They were a great way to overcome some design criteria. Both Beatty and HOT have had successful flop bots.

[Pjohn1959]

Both Beatty and HOT have had successful flop bots.

Don't forget 16's 2008 robot that made it to the finals on Einstein.

[PAR_WIG1350]

What do you mean? Team 3553 made a folding defensive robot.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96515&highlight=dragonfly

I was referring to a folding superstructure that would alter the robots profile such that, assuming proper weight distribution, the robot would naturally come to rest on its wheels if it were flipped over. 3553' folding frame simply gave them a larger footprint.