![]() |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
You have blown my mind completley:ahh:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
4 a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them> b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up> c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight> Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response. What do you guys think on this ruleing? |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
This design is amazing. I can only imagine all of the details that need to be attended to for this to work as a ramp, as a robot that balances on the end, and as a gathering + shooting robot. So many constraints to satisfy on one robot! It makes me happy to see a really cool design like this.
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
I can't believe how many people are surprised at a robot like this - I expected it.
Its just like 148's Tumbleweed in 2008 where its going to show its true colors in the elimination matches and be the pick of a lifetime for any alliance who can hold their own with their first two robots. Not only that, but a robot that can pretty much guarantee that an opposing alliance robot can get on the ramp with them will probably earn them the top seed anyway. Great design. I just hope that this will be the new start of a wave of simple robot designs for all teams in the years to come. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
if you couldn't see this thing and someone explained that only a 6"x20something" piece of it was in contact with only the top of the bridge, would you think it was legal?
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
It was a direct port from badcaps.net forums where I am a super-mod... the forum needed a dead horse smiley. I wouldn't consider it overly graphic... yeah, there is a whip and there is some red flecks but honestly? |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Wow. :ahh: The design is so simple yet elegant! and the purpose makes a lot of sense.
I can't wait to see this thing in action! |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Great job! My team is working on a different/similar design because we were doing a holding mechanism that was similar but powered by motors and had no ramp so we have a higher notch shooter.
I also did some pixel calculations using paint and this is my find (roughly): wheels = 104 pixels sooo, 1 inch = 17.33 pixels 14 inches= 242.67 pixels Past the frame perimeter: extends = 237 pixels sooo, final extends = ~~13.67 inches, seems good to me. also in the picture with the ramp set up, was that 22 degrees. I calculated about 27 degrees (probably just a calculation error, unless the picture was before a mod that allowed it to be only 22 degrees). |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
I'm thinking like 469 (2010), this robot, 71 (2002), 148 (2008). I think teams forget that in order to be successful with one of these specialized designs, you have to have major good engineering, tweaking, and testing going on. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
First of all I want to congratulate on such a great design and execution . When I posted the link in our team's forum I added caption to the effect 'this is what I would call a power play (a play that executed correctly will almost guarantee whining a match)'
I am wondering how this ramp design will change the value of wide vs. narrow chassis in alliance selections. Many teams chose wide chassis because it may aid in a) balancing 3 bots, and b) with size of ball intake. This design takes away the value of the wide bots for balancing. As a matter of fact , wide bots would have harder time aligning with and climbing your ramp. Good luck. I hope the rules are interpreted in your favor . |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
179, I absolutely adore this robot. Depending on its scoring prowess, I can see this being a real dominating force at your regionals, but I'm sure that you'll be a great alliance partner no matter what happens. Thanks for sharing your great idea and good luck during the rest of build season! |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
They should be able to lower the bridge, I think. They can use the whole ramp as a lever arm to push it down and drive on top of it. It's clearly strong, since they lift their robot with it. Should be able to handle it, I'd guess.
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Wow! Once again you have shown that you are one of the most creative teams in the world. Your concept has completely shifted the paradigm of a difficult three-robot balance. I look forward to seeing you in action in Orlando - expect many suitors.
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Thank you Andy, Glenn, Roger, Eric, Gary, Mike, Brandon, Sean, Jared, Drew and everyone for all the compliments and interest, we appreciate it. I think the rules vetting is very informative as to how it will be perceived by the refs etc.
To try and answer a few of the questions:
Another neat feature is the strain guages under the upper channel plate will measure upward force of the bridge so we can determine when opposing bot(s) weight is equal to our bots weight. Very colorful programmable LED strips will run up the sides of the ramp that can be seen from both sides of the ramp. The lights will rise as the weight rises, when they reach the top (equalized) they will blink red indicating whoever is driving out to the other end of the bridge to stop moving, then we lift. Plus we will use them like runway lights while the ramp is ready to be climbed. This bot should come in around 110lbs with bumpers, it's very light. I can't wait to see all this stuff do what it supposedly does. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
But you've thought of all this already, haven't you? |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Neat robot! Very aggressive in terms of rules interpretation -- I don't think I'm that brave... I'm not sure if that's a caution or a compliment! :D
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
Q:If a robot is designed to be contacted inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing, could a team request a waiver of G27 for touching inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing the coopertition bridge with an opponent? A: No. So any opponent robot that tries to climb you will earn themselves a G27 violation, complete with technical foul. Of course, you may well find times where this an entirely worthwhile tradeoff. Being qualifications though, I wish your coach luck in negotiating these and determining in-match whether they'll actually happen, if you decide to go that route. Note that G27 can also earn the opposing robot a yellow card for repeated or egregious violations. You may want a Q&A, but I'd suspect there's nothing much repeated (at least not in a single match, and I doubt you'll coopertition balance with the same robot twice) and certainly not egregious. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Very Very nice. I'm liking the wheelies that you're doing, it's a new method of getting over the barrier!
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
http://vimeo.com/3277978 ;) |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
I always look forward for 148.
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Three things
1: I love the idea of the arm, my team thought about and still might make one of those 2: A concern about a possible issue, when it is latched onto the ramp, the robot's ramp and its latcher ( not sure what to call it) might be both considered outside of the robots perimeter, maybe there would be a way to fix that 3: One of the reasons my team didn't build this right away was because we think there will be a rule update prohibiting this kind of latching on to something Hopefully it will be allowed, because I love this idea and I'd love to see it in competition, major wowfactor |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
I dont see the pictures of this robot everyone is talking about?
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Not to sound too much like a "glass half empty" guy because I'm a huge fan of the basic concept of this machine but...in terms of it's other reported game-play capabilities, has the Swamp team been following this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=100696 It's painful and long (unlike this thread which is upbeat and long) but there is meaningful discussion in there about GDC rulings that would seem to make the sprocket components on the underside of the 179 ramp illegal. I know our team is anxiously awaiting the GDC's response to the open questions posted by 148 and 1619 so hopefully one/both of those replies put us all in the clear! Great work though and good luck! |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
Just kidding It works fine for me on Safari, Firefox, and Google Chrome, however I haven't tried it on Internet Explorer (and don't plan on it), so I can't say whether or not that's the problem. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Unfortunately, it's turned out not to be quite as simple as that...
If you review the entire thread and specifically look at post #78 by artdutra04, you'll probably see the concern. In 179's current design, there would appear to be a point in time during deployment where only an edge of the sprockets would be outside their frame perimeter (because the axle connecting it to the rest of the ramp assembly hasn't yet crossed the frame perimeter) making it discontiguous from the ramp. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
The pictures are links from our team Facebook page so your firewall is probably blocking them.
As far as the contiguous perimeter issue, we may need to add a contiguous feature until the ramp edge crosses the plane and becomes the leading edge(split second). It's silly stuff like this that give the poor inspectors an arduous task of pushing all these innocent designs back and hold up inspections endlessly. Wouldn't any time a bot tips a little violate that rule (unless it were completely flat on top)? |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
Common sense says a wheel or sprocket rigidly attached to an appendage that crosses the frame perimeter is obviously contiguous. If you strictly and exactly follow what the GDC has ruled on G21 in the Q&A forum, these are illegal. Until now, the basic gist of all GDC rulings on G21 has been: "if it is outside the frame perimeter, it must be a single contiguous piece (with the test of contiguous-ness only being the on the parts outside the frame perimeter) at all times. If it is not contiguous, it's considered multiple appendages and illegal". If this seems inane, it's because it is. You can't build robots based upon what your gut says is common sense or what seems to be the intent of the GDC. You have to build your robots based upon exactly what's written in the rules. You also can't decide to arbitrarily enforce GDC rulings on some things (like whips on an intake roller) and not on others (ordinary wheels on an appendage) even though they both violate the contiguous/one appendage/frame perimeter ruling in exactly the same manner. I'm really hoping the GDC realizes the untenability of the "must be contiguous at all times outside the frame perimeter" position on G21 in today's team update and comes up with a better solution. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
As for my comment on the microscopic scale people are looking at appendages, I feel that I understand the intent and "description" that the GDC has given of the rule, that I don't see what everyone is so worried about. I understand the logic of their arguments and worries but I don't understand why they have them. |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
I have to join the chorus that this is a very innovative and well executed design. What blows me away the most, if I'm reading the date stamp correctly, is that this thread started at the end of January...just over three weeks from kickoff! Your team must have some very talented CAD engineers, machinists and welders to put that together so quickly. Either that or you worked 24/7 till that point.
Bravo! Can't wait to see your shooter! |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Check the latest team update. It has a revision to G21, adding this:
"All portions of an appendage that are outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous with each other. Very brief violations of the contiguity requirement as a single appendage is being extended or retracted will not be penalized." 'Very brief' isn't very strictly defined. However, I'd say that this design fits within it. So long as all of it is intended to go past and does every time it's extended, I'd say they'd be fine. Thoughts? |
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Rampbot!
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Where do the bumpers get mounted, & how would you define the frame perimiter in this instance? :confused:
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
OH MY GOSH! Amazing amazing! If you guys make it to world i have to see this thing!
|
Re: 179 Swamp Teasers
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:01. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi