Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

After another long and difficult build season, Team 1538 presents its 8th robot, Daisy Diablo.

We would like to acknowledge and thank teams 233, 254 and 968. You've inspired our students and mentors to strive for a quality robot and design.

Specifications:

• Drivetrain Speeds: 18 FPS(High Gear), 8 FPS(Low Gear)
• Weight: 119 lbs
• 6" Pneumatic Wheels with custom hubs
• 2 CIM + 1 RS550 motor per Drivetrain Gearbox
• 1 AM9015 + 1 RS550 motors per Conveyer Gearbox
• 2 FP(xx-0673) driving a 8" diameter, 1.5 lbs Nylon Shooter Wheel

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Been waiting for this one. As you kids say out there, "hella cool."

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Awesome! I can't wait for SVR! That shooter and hood combination looks familiar.... ;)

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Looks like we drew inspiration from the same source during design.

Bot looks awesome.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Kiet,
seems weird that you are not part of the red/black team anymore!

Great fabrication work as usual.

As I first glanced at the robot, it looked mighty familiar.............some 2006 machine that I recall from 254/968.:rolleyes:

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Best looking robot I've seen yet. I love the obvious nod to the 254/968 shooter of 2006. Hella fly!

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/23983

Huh? Dejavu?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Beautifully built.

Any plans for using the camera, or do you have something else up your sleeve for targeting?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Are you worried about ever having more than 3 in that hopper?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

We're able to score accurately using a few reference points on the field. We are also planning on using a camera(wasn't mounted when the photo was taken).

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

the robot looks amazing :) but i was wondering the same thing... how do you keep balls from gettinng into the hopper?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

This robot looks like it is made from Lego Mindstorms, in the good way.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

What's the purpose of the pneumatic piston on the rear of the elevator? My first guess is hood adjustment, but with the rivets running down the hood I'm not entirely sure.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

It looks like the hood does adjust, It might be for a short range high arcing mode (like 968 in '06).

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Looking very nice 1538 and loving the design concepts this was the first robot I looked back to once the game was announced!

Good luck this season!

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

I was thinking the same thing. What if a bot on an opposing alliance shot balls into their hopper when they were already carrying 3?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Most likely, the opposing alliance will incur a foul while giving our team another ball to shoot.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

It's just for achieving a steeper trajectory, similar to 968 in 2006.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

This robot looks fantastic. Great work

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

You California teams sure make some shiny robots! The ball harvester pivoting on the same axis as the roller is a nice touch, and I like the pivoting shooter hood. What is the material for your rollers and shafts?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Under what rule?

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

[G44]
Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

G44

While G44 covers the actions of an opposing alliance, there is nothing that would prevent the actions of an alliance partner robot from causing a four-ball possession foul in an open-topped hopper. Accidents like a bouncing/missed 3pt shot could easily land in an open hopper if the robot was close enough to the fender.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Nice looking robot Kiet. Nice touch on powder coating the wheel rims. Hey, what are you using to join the shooter hood side to the shooter hood top?

I think you'll like what you see from 696 this year too ;)

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Considering their robot is 119lbs, I wouldn't have made a gate for an open hopper when the chance of getting a stray rebound is small much less when you have there in your robot.

We played around with making a gate on our robot but it comes at the opportunity cost of getting your other mechanisms working and into your weight budget.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

We've played around with throwing balls into the robot and it's not as easy as it looks. The ball has to bounce just right for it to land into the hopper. The top of the hopper sits around 34", which is just below the opening of the inbound station. We wanted a low, open hopper so that we could drive up to the inbound station and have an inbounder drop balls into our robot.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

wow, i like the basket for human loading. Nice looking bot, can't wait to see it up close in San Diego. :)

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Yet again another clean and formidable looking robot from the Holy Cows. Great job guys.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Thanks Dave! They're just held together using lots of bolts. It's hard to get away from a previous team in terms of robot design, isn't it? ;)

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

Also don't be surprised if you get a violation for rule G21. Our team was at a mini-Regional, with the head inspector from the Wisconsin Regional there. We had a ball pickingup device, similar to yours.It extended partially beyond the frame perimeter. He declared that it was illegal, since the polychord was not contiguous. It was within the frame perimeter and then outside the frame perimeter, as it rotated, attempting to pickup balls. Because of that he said we'd be hit with a rules violation. We were forced to redesign our unit, so as not to extend beyond the frame.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

That looks legal to me. I'd like to see a picture of yours, but I have a feeling that you may not have needed to modify it. Clearly on FRC1538's bot, everything comes down at once. As the assembly itself is contiguous, it should be ok.

Was he saying the belts weren't contiguous because they were partly in the frame and partly out of it? Or was he concerned that the belts were the leading edge, so as you lowered it, there is a moment where the tips of a few belts are breaking the plane? The brief violation note should get you through here. It's clearly the intent of the rule that transitioning between flipped up and down shouldn't cause a penalty.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

He was saying that the entire assembly is not considered to be contiguous. As I understood it, the leading edge, was in motion ( the polycord belts ). When I asked him " What if we covered it, with a Lexan cover ?" , then he responded, saying that he would favor our argument. Either way, it isn't a very clear rule, and it seriously effected us, to the point where, we abondoned our strategy of reaching out for balls, and had to redesign that system. He also stated, that it would be up to the head referee, to make that determination. It's sort of a rotten way to incur a penalty, by not clarifying the rules. In another related system, our ball thrower, uses a rotating turret. When the turret rotates, say about 30-45 degrees, our CIM motor, breaks the plane of the frame perimeter, on the left side and our spinning wheels break the front plane of the frame perimeter. That's two appendages sticking out, not one, as we had thought. We were once again illegal. The only good thing was, that we found out two days before bag-n-tag, and we could correct it.

Re: Team 1538 - 2012 Robot
 

If all of the parts of the pickup mechanism are touching each other at the same time outside the single edge of the frame perimeter, then they are contiguous. The fact that one part is able to rotate on bearings does not make it not-contiguous, as far as I can determine from the intent of the rule. I would love to see Al's interpretation of this or the GDC's. Without seeing a before picture, I can't be certain I am understanding you correctly. This discussion should become a separate topic, since we are hijacking the thread of a great looking robot.

This is an entirely different story. The CIM breaking a plane while your feeder mech is breaking the plane is clearly not within [G21]. The shooter wheels popping out the other side? Also not good with [G21]. If your feeder was retracted, and only the CIM *OR* the Shooter Wheel was breaking the plane, then it is ok under [G21].