Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

Wouldn't any team using the "dump box" have to get reinspected or at least re-weighed in order to compete with it?

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

Also who accounts for that in the 30lbs, or did you bag them or build them at the competition?

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

See [R03] in the Manual -- emphasis added
"The Robot weight may not exceed 120 lbs. When determining weight, the basic Robot structure and all elements of all additional Mechanisms that might be used in different configurations of the Robot shall be weighed together."

As I read the rule, a robot that uses the "dump box" in some matches, but not in others, must be under the weight limit when the "dump box" is added to all of the mechanisms used in other matches. Of course a permanent (for that event) change to remove another mechanism and add the "dump box" would be OK, provided the robot passes a re-inspection; however, changing back and forth between the robot's original configuration and the "dump box" configuration would violate the intent of [R03], unless the combined weight of the robot and all mechanisms is less than 120 lb.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

Well, given that both teams made sure the user of the box wouldn't be overweight when using it, they more than likely wouldn't have taken anything off to use it in the first place. So the "all configurations" rule doesn't make a difference if they never have to take anything off to use it, and they don't exceed the weight limit when they use it.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

In the search for a team to use the bump box. Weight was a primary consideration. The bump box was designed to fit on a kit bot frame. 4082's robot weighed less than 60 lbs. They were an ideal partner for 2122 (and our team, 1983). They are a great story. 4 students. 1 mentor. It was a privilege working with them on our alliance in Spokane.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

Ditto on awesome1730. Power drills are probably the quickest way to prototype for us.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

We acquire one image when the operator starts aiming with the camera and use this to calculate how far the turret needs to turn. We found this to be more effective and accurate than acquiring multiple images as the turret swung around.

We have posted an overview of what we did this year for our Programming and Controls here.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

Our protocode was essentially this:
Acquire image, calculate center of the square location (in pixels)
Subtract number of pixels from the center of the image, convert to degrees
If degrees <1 go to shooting; else feed degrees to gyro
Rotate robot that number of degrees
Repeat until shooting is initiated -- generally unneeded, every once in a while it would have to repeat the cycle.

It worked GREAT at home, less so on the field. We haven't parsed out why, yet.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

We put a lot of work into identifying the proper target on the field by rating each particle based on height, aspect ratio, size, and fill percentage. The five largest particles were scored and the highest ranked was assumed to be the actual target.

We also look at the lowest target, which means less interference from other light sources.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

I liked 1114's Ball picker-upper It was an apendage wich allowed the team to pick up balls that are stuck in the corners of the arena.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

I personaly like 1319's elevator and brake pads they had at worlds....now not being involved but sourt of a onlooker i thought they had the right idea but got stuck with some rookies and that messed them up

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

For teams on a tight budget: If you have an old junker Pentium laptop or desktop computer with a serial port, you can easily use that to generate a PWM signal to control a Victor or Jaguar. Details here.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

When I got to championships, I was thoroughly impressed with the systems that lowered the bridge and picked up balls at at the same time (i.e. 67 HOT). It seemed to me that an arm that picked up balls and "dropped" them into another hopper would be too unreliable and "flimsy." That is, that balls would fall out easily and it seemed like too much work to have an actuated arm to pick up balls when we could just do it with a roller. This came up in our original design discussions a couple times, and was eventually shot down every time for many of those ver reasons. However, I think that especially 67's system worked incredibly well for them. The fact that they could go to the bridge and pick up balls at the same time very easily proved to be very beneficial to them. It also worked very well on the floor.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

(Sorry, I'm not good with team numbers.)
There was a team at both Suffield Shakedown and the CT regional with a tube-and-fan assembly that collected balls over the bumper, shot, and was strong enough to manipulate the bridge in either direction. It was perhaps 4' long, pivoted at about 1/3 of the way along the tube, and mounted on a turret. (Think of a telescope mount.) A beautiful sight to behold.

Re: Why didn't we think of that?
 

The team you are referring to is the return of team 23 to FRC. Here is a picture of their 2012 robot.