![]() |
Re: Driving long?
FIRST Team 1296 went long so going over the bump will be easier and mounting a ramp lower device seemed easier (given the geometry of our gatherer). Madison is right about the small aperture gatherer mechanisms on long chassis, thus ours gathers from all 4 sides.
Our mecanum drive alignment and software seems really good this year and we can spin in place once on the bridge in a couple of seconds. But is it worth it to try? I agree that 3 (traditional) robot balancing is problematic w/o time to practice the maneuver - hopefully we make it far enough for it to be feasible. |
Re: Driving long?
Quote:
Most of all, I want to see the wide:long ratio of robots on the field vs. the wide:long ratio of robots who make it to the championships. |
Re: Driving long?
I like a long bot for greater field mobility which in my mind means moving over the barrier quickly with little risk of getting stuck or tipping. Like most I believe there are designs that will allow you to collect balls quickly as a long bot, so that shouldn't be too much of a disadvantage. As for the bridge balancing, I think it is far to difficult to assume you will be able to balance the bridge with 3 long bots, I think teams will design for this problem.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Driving long?
Quote:
|
Re: Driving long?
[/i]For all intents and purposes, our foot print is ~32" x 27.5"
Wow, came to the same exact size! Nice. |
Re: Driving long?
We chose to make our robot long because Typically wide robots have issues with tipping. Because the motors do not exert force in the short direction, there is less ability for the robot to get put in a situation where it could tip. We also like the drive-ability gains for a long robot, the turns feel more responsive and quick because the wheels are closer to the middle of the robot.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi