FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Hello CD,

So, this is an idea that I'd like to try and implement for all future years. Every year, a number of people go to the forums and look for the best designs to do this and that. Well, why not centralize it? What I'd like to do here is list out several categories of robot designs for the specific years, and people list their suggestions for what should be considered the "best design" for that category.

Now, this is in no way going to end up being a definitive list of the best designs, because what someone considers best will vary from person to person. My goal for this thread is to have a list of designs for a specific task that people looking for inspirations in their robot designs can turn towards, analyze, and develop as they see fit.

So what do you guys think of this idea? To the best of my knowledge, so thread like this has been started with continuity, and I feel this is something that people on Chief Delphi can really benefit from.

So, here are the guidelines:

• When making suggestions, you don't need to make a recommendation for all design categories. You can suggest anywhere from one to as many as there are categories!
• When making a suggestion for a design, include the following: Design Category, Team Number, a description of the design, and what you think makes this design better than any other.
• If you feel someone has posted a design that IS NOT the best, don't just say that. Put up another design that you think it better, and expain why you feel that way.
• Suggested designs will be recorded in this original post, for ease of access for all.
• Don't hesitate to suggest a design that has already been suggested. If multiple people back a design, I will note it in this post. And if you feel you have anything to add to what has been said about that design, go for it!
• Including pictures or videos of the design would be ideal. Links would be preferable, so I can link to them in this post.
• If you feel another category needs to be added to this, please let me know. I'll determine if it deserves its own category, or if it can be combined with an existing category.

So with that, I'll kick things off with my proposals for 2012:

Drives:
Swerve Drive, as seen by 16, 1717, 973 and others
-Omnidirectional drive system allowing teams to move in any direction, anytime.
-The Swerve Drive in 2012 aided teams in a variety of ways. With it, teams were able to drive onto the bridge on either the long or wide orientation. It also gave teams an amazing ball intake ability, allowing them to turn to any direction to acquire a ball. By avoiding defense robots, and traversing the field and acquiring balls quickly, Swerve drives had a huge advantage this year.

Ball Acquiring System:
Multi-Directional Drop Down Intake, as seen by 973 and 177
-A drop-down intake system consisting of a series of rollers and urethane belt that sucked the ball into the robot, no matter what part of the device the ball contacted.
-This system gave 973 and 177 an amazing intake ability, being able to touch a ball with any part of the system and have it be acquired. This gave teams a lot of leeway when going to acquire balls, having a smaller chance of missing and not acquiring the ball.

Over-the-Bumper Intake, as seen by 469, 2056, 1114, 2826, 341 and others
-The over-the-bumper intake system was a very common design in 2012, with many dominating teams using it. Essentially, it's just a collector system that drops out over the bumpers and sucks in balls. This can turn an entire side of a robot into a collector.
-By using this, teams were able to greatly speed up their collecting of balls. By making them as wide as the side of a robot, teams were essentially able to just drive at a ball and collect it. This proved to be a huge asset for teams who were shooting, and teams who were stealing balls.

Ball Transport System:
Rotating tower, as seen by 33, 973, 177, 78 and others
-Instead of just the shooter rotating, the entire tower/storage system and shooter rotated. In doing so, balls entered the same way every time.
-In doing so, the teams who used this were far less prone to jamming as the balls would enter the tower the same way every time.

Perpendicular Entry” Tower, as seen by 971
-971's tower and intake system put the balls in around a corner, greatly reducing their risk of jamming.
-Like the rotating tower, 971 rarely (if ever) had ball jams, keeping their shooting consistent every match. Combine that with their lightening quick ball elevation, and 971 was a force.

Ball Scoring System:
Arm/Shooter combo, as seen by 548, 330, 1323 and others
-These robots had a shooter attached to an arm, allowing them to get their shooter up to the top basket, and pop the shoots out from a much closer distance.
-Many teams had an issue getting consistent key shooting throughout the season, but by having the shooter on the lift, the teams were able to greatly increase their consistency. Most of these teams also acquired the ability to shooter from distance, allowing them to circumvent defense.

Rotating Wheel Shooter, as seen by 1114, 610, 118, 1717, 399 and many, many others
-The rotating shooter is exactly as it sounds: A spinning wheel acting as a shooter, on a rotating device so it can point in different direction
-By using this design, teams could target a basket and face it with a turret design, and then shoot from a distance. By tracking the target well, teams using this could avoid defense and put in a lot of points.

Bridge Manipulator:
The Utility Arm, as seen by 67
-67's Utility Arm allowed them to acquire balls, go over the bump, and manipulate the bridge. This arm would push the bridge down with little effort.
-The utility arm was built to be robust, so 67 would always be capable of manipulating the bridge. It could quickly and easily push the bridge down to allow 67 to drive on smoothly.

Bump Crossing:
Large Pneumatic Wheels, as seen by 1114 and 2056 and many others
-These teams use large pneumatic wheels in their drive systems, which allowed to simply drive over the bump, quick and easy, forward or backward.
-By relying on the type of wheels they used, these teams had a passive device that worked every time, no failure. This gave them more time to work on other robot functions and gave them and even more robust design.

Drop-Down castor wheels, as seen on 254, 971, 111 and others
IN PROGRESS OF RESEARCH

Bridge Balancing Aid (i.e. Stinger, etc.):
FRC1986, The Teeter-Totter Talons
-1986 had a pair of pneumatically powered 'talons' that would push down and aid in the balancing of the bridge.
-With the aid of the talons, 1986 could not only push up on the bridge to even it out, but they could even brace the bridge from falling. Quick and effective. With the addition of the Twin Tucking Tabs, 1986 was a balancing machine.

So what do you guys think? Also, if I post any incorrect information, please let me know.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

With all due respect, the multidirectional intake system was not pioneered by 973. It is a descendent of a design first featured on Chief Delphi's 2002 robot.

Even if you don't count that, 177 had a virtually identical system at their first regional, so if you want to credit the "first" design of this nature in the year 2012 they deserve just as much credit as 973. I believe 1323 had a similar system at ship, albeit with a recessed front intake. I am sure I'm missing others (e.g. I don't know if 33 shipped with the CD7 intake or added it later).

The same applies to other designs you posted. 33 had a rotating tower, but so did 973, 177, 78, and probably several others. While 548 had a shooting arm, so did 330 and 1323.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Hi leeland,

I like the idea!!!
No offense but some of these systems multiple teams had the same thing.

For Ball Acquiring System:

973 wasn't the only team who had that design there was 3138 and a few other teams that I don't remember.

For Swerve:

16 wasn't the only team who had swerve yes they can do some of the best swerve but they weren't the only team who did swerve this year.

I wouldnt give credit to one team for similar mechanisms. multiple teams had similar systems.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

We've had a CD7 "Joe Johnson"-style intake since long before "ship" day. It was in our design quite early on.

Edit: The best pic I can find of the CD7 intake is http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/22478

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

A compilation of the best implementations of the best designs is pretty cool and useful. Maybe a little more emphasis should be put on the fact that it's not a new idea, but highlighting whoever did it best this year isn't necessarily a bad thing.

We referenced the 2007 FRC Design book (I can't remember it's actual name) a few times for the 2011 season. I'm sure not all of the designs in there were original, but it's a lot more helpful than leaving out designs because they've been used before.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

This thread is abut the best designs used in 2012 not who did what first. Shouldn't it be about what designs worked the best in 2012.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

We had the intake since week 1 of build, but we clearly copied it from 47 2002. I saw that robot in action first hand as a 7th grader and never forgot how awesome I thought that intake was.

We probably could have had our intake work 50% better, as we made some geometry mistakes on it that really bogged it down.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Bump crossing I think goes to 67 for their arm, which they used to lift themselves over the bump, or 548 for their slanted front bumper/frame that slid them up over the bump. Both of those were amazingly elegant.

I also want to throw out that there were some pretty underrated wedge-shaped bump traversers (118 and 233 come to mind) that people forget.

*And no, I'm not blowing my own horn, because we always took a bridge instead of going over the bump.

I also nominate 469 for best ball acquiring system. They had a system that--however it happened--was absolutely magnetic to balls. I never once saw them go for a ball and miss, and every time it was lightning fast. They also made great use of the basket, taking feeds from their inbounder at the inbuonding station and heading right back over the bump with the built-in wedge.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

BTW, before everyone give ALL of the credit to 47 for their 2002 ball intake, 45 came up with a nearly identical intake that year. They probably deserve a bit of credit as well. Here's a link to a pic: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/13853

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

How could I forget. I loved how that robot would throw balls to itself as it's "conveyor" system.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

also, 254/971/111(and any others) for the pop up wheels that allowed them to get over the bump just as fast or faster than all the other bump traversing robots I've seen.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

My comments are in Italics and Underlined

Great thread idea!
Regards, Bryan

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I think this year 1717 may have had the best driven swerve in the history of FIRST. It's hard for me to recall back to the early 2000's to think of who might have driven theirs better, but they definitely drove it better than any team in recent memory that I have seen.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I agree that 1717 takes this category hands down.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

So let me just address some things.

I know multiple teams used similar designs this season. The 33/973 turret is just one example. I have a few reasons for doing this the way I did. For starters, I wanted to give people who find this thread later on a reference point to go off of. Giving a robot and a design, I felt, fit that criteria. I also wanted to give as much exposure to multiple robots/teams as possible. 33, 973 and 16 all had designs I wanted to use multiple times. 33 or 973 for the turret, 16 or 973 for the swerve. Because 973 also had an acquisition system I really liked (and thus was already having their design directed to), I thought teams could benefit more from seeing a separate robot with a turret (i.e. 33). I don't mean to cut the credit from teams who had similar designs. It's partially I liked how it could work out by getting more robots exposure (and thus, people who come here later can see more). Maybe having a specific team referenced was a poorly thought out idea, but I think it'll give people coming here for reference a better idea. The point isn't to provide credit to a certain team for a design. It's to put a design out there, and have a team be used as an example. If that makes sense.

P.S. I'll make the appropriate updates to the original post in the morning. From now on, I'll try to update it once a day, or multiple times a day if I feel it's necessary.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Funny how that's coming from the team who won an award or two for Emperor Swerve....

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

1717 since last year has had a swerve better in programming and mechanically that 16. When it became independent this year, along with 2 speeds, it completely blew everything else out of the water. By maybe adding in some modes like 16, it could really become that drivetrain that we have all been dreaming about.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

That's debatable. Bomb Squad's swerve looked better this year than any I've ever seen.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

It is definitely debateable, but 1717's swerve this year was at least as good as 16.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I thinks this is hard to tell. 16 had much larger wheels than 1717 (and us) so they could traverse the bump without a separate mechanism. This I think gave them an advantage because the driver never had to wait for the co-driver or double check that the mechanism was down, which robbed us at least a lot of time. Although when I did see 1717 a champs they rarely slowed down before crossing the bump.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

We've all heard of the match where 1717 shoots 19 for 20 in the central valley finals. Let's think about this; how many robots are even capable of collecting that many balls over a 2 minute period, much less, collecting and shooting that many balls in a 2 minute period? I'd be willing to bet that it is one of the handful of robots in FIRST history that has a drive train capable of that. I know there are other factors in that kind of performance, like firing rate, collection ease, defense, and a little bit of luck, but that drive train is unparalleled at what it has been able to do in this game.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Three digits: 4 6 9.
They did it to us in the Newton semis, and stole 14 (+/- 1, it's late) balls from our side in one match.

I don't know of any others, though.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I think this could turn into a pretty cool resource, neat idea.

Going off of past experience, I think it would be ideal to have a short list of teams who used each method effectively so that you can look at multiple implementations of the same concepts.
Eg: Over-bumper intake: 2056/2826/469/341/971/256

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I thought that 118's pincher at the top of their tower was cool. It helped them shot balls quickly and accurately.
http://vimeo.com/37293255

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

So far, I'm loving the discussion that is being bred by this thread (especially the 16 v 1717 for Swerve drive). Here's what I'm thinking I'm going to do:

Several people have mentioned that I should include multiple teams who did the design well. So I think that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to rework the design headers so it's going to be "The (design), as used by team(s) (####...)". I realized (after reading some people's comments), that the way I have it now credits a team with a design, when my original intention was to have a design, and have a team used as an example.

Keep the ideas coming guys! I'm hoping this could become a great resource for people to look back on!
I'm going to update the original post now, based on what people have posted so far. It will probably take some time, so be patient.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

As a balancing aid, you may want to put down bridge brakes (2175 had a good implementation).

And 118's bridge grabber should be put here as well. Future games might allow something similar...

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

179's unique design for the bridge

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I gotta do a shout out to the original stingers of 33 and 148. There was a huge arms race to incorporate these features, yet 33 and 148 still had some of the best stingers by the time worlds came around.

I think we need a separate category for "pneumatic plunger deployment into shooter," like 1114 and 987. I though those ideas were genius, as the ball was always introduced the same way, no matter the position of the shooter.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I'm not sure how they ended the season, but I was under the impression that it didn't work out as planned on the competition bridge and wasn't too effective.

I'm not trying to say it's not a really cool idea, but I wouldn't say it was one of the best designs.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

This is correct, I was at both of their events and very rarely saw them use that feature of their robot. Furthermore I feel it detracted from their scoring ability.

I would also mention that, while 973 was not the only team with a CD7 intake they were the only team to utilize it in the unique manner they did. They made excellent use of their swerve system to sweep balls up using the ability of that intake to grab any ball it touches. While they didn't invent it they did show how effective it could be.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

IIRC both places they went they were out in quarters and the discussions I read showed that while their ramp could get robots up the bridge, the fact that they were that much weight on the utmost edge of the bridge made it near impossible to balance with.
Thus, good idea, but physics trumps creativity yet again.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

1114 didn't have over-the-bumper intake.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

It didn't necessarily carry the balls over the bumper, but it still fits into the definition the OP had.

The OP defined an over the bumper pickup as "A pick up system which turned an entire side of the robot into a pickup system."

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Maybe we should rename the category to drop-down intake? "Over the bumper" seems to mean to a lot of people that the ball goes over the bumper, not that just the intake mechanism goes over the bumper.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Actually why it didn't work was at the competition, the bridges ended up having an extra 2-3 inches of polycarb hangoff which made them dip lower than they expected. Also, the ramp didn't pan out because the refs would give their opponents major penalties for "crossing their bumper perimeter" everytime they drove on them to get on the co-op bridge.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I just wanted to keep everyone updated on the going-ons in this thread.

The info currently on the OP is obviously outdated. I'm unable to edit this post as of right now (I assume it's a time thing, that I can't edit posts within a certain period). I have most of the updates I'm going to make written down and ready to go.

Such things include:
-More methods of barrier crossing
-Bridge balancing aids (The Drop-Down Piston and The Four Bar Linkage)
-I'm going to update the Ball Acquisition section to reflect Over-The-Bumper and Drop-Down, which I have been mistakenly using interchangeably.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far!

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

One design I saw by team 2914 that was so simple to get on the bridge was basically a giant polycarbonate wedge sheet on top of the robot. The robot would drive towards the bridge and the bridge would lift up, the robot would drive backwards, the bridge would fall down towards them as it tottered, and then they would quickly drive toward and up onto the bridge. No mechanical moving parts were used on the robot except the driving.

This device was also very useful for lifting the bridge for people on the other side of them.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

this is similar to 1323's East- West Collaboration project.
Anyways, some swerve drive code/ blueprints would be nice.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I don't have anything like that for 16 or 1717 right now (though I may seek into it further), but I'd recommend taking a look at FRC Designs. There is not an abundance of Swerve designs on there, but they do have CAD for 148 from 2008 and 973's Emperor Swerve (The 2011 off season model). If you're interested, that could certainly be a place to look

148 - 2008
973 - 2011 Offseason

As far as code goes, I don't have much anything for that. But I may be able to ask around and see what people are willing to share.

As far as 1126 goes (they were on Swerve this year), they published their code for this year in this thread. I'm pretty sure they included the code for their Swerve drive.

(P.S. If anyone reading this has code for a Swerve Drive they'd be willing to make public and share, that would certainly help out in the mission of this thread)

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

This paper may be of use to you http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2426

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I'm curious as to who the best "Electronics layout" would go to. I know that Cheesy Poofs always have some beautiful electronics boards, and Wildstang maintains the same standard of excellence. And I imagine there are plenty of other teams who hold their electronics board to ensure every electron is orderly. So, with that in mind, who do you think had the most organized electronics board this year? Pictures welcome!

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I have to say, the team that was making shots from the co-op bridge, while balanced with us on Archimedes, had a very impressive strategy, their shot while on balanced on the bridge won them the match by a couple points inside that last 15 seconds.

(I wish I remember the team number :/)

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Does anyone have anything tangible on the team 16 and 1717 swerve designs?

We're working on a swerve bot as an offseason project, so if these bots were two of the best it'd be great to have a look at them. I don't need a full CAD model, or blueprints, or anything that detailed. How about a picture or even just a brief description? There doesn't seem to be much info floating around other than a few "they were awesome" comments.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Use Frc Designs

Emperor Swerve--http://www.frc-designs.com/html/CAD_Offseason.html
2 swerve drives here--http://www.frc-designs.com/html/drives.html

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I'm already familiar with the stuff that's been previously published. What I'm really interested in is what made 16 and 1717 so good this year?

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

This is a thread with their 2010 robot and swerve. The swerve is basically the same designs this year as then, except independent.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35361

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I have a video of 1126's mechanical team taking a look at one of 16's swerve modules (seperate, out of the robot), and talking with one of their students about it. It's really informative. I don't have access to it right now, so I'll upload it when I get home.

Hopefully that will help some people get an insight into 16's swerve design.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Hey guys. Sorry for the extreme delay. With the end of school, I've been a little swamped with exams and getting stuff straightened out. Without further adieu, here's the updated design list:


Drives:
Swerve Drive, as seen by 16, 1717, 973 and others
-Omnidirectional drive system allowing teams to move in any direction, anytime.
-The Swerve Drive in 2012 aided teams in a variety of ways. With it, teams were able to drive onto the bridge on either the long or wide orientation. It also gave teams an amazing ball intake ability, allowing them to turn to any direction to acquire a ball. By avoiding defense robots, and traversing the field and acquiring balls quickly, Swerve drives had a huge advantage this year.

Ball Acquiring System:
Multi-Directional Drop Down Intake, as seen by 973,177 and 2415
-A drop-down intake system consisting of a series of rollers and urethane belt that sucked the ball into the robot, no matter what part of the device the ball contacted.
-This system gave the teams using it an amazing intake ability, being able to touch a ball with any part of the system and have it be acquired. This gave teams a lot of leeway when going to acquire balls, having a smaller chance of missing and not acquiring the ball.

Over-the-Bumper Intake, as seen by 469, 2056, , 2826, 341 and others
-The over-the-bumper intake system was a very common design in 2012, with many dominating teams using it. Essentially, it's just a collector system that drops out over the bumpers and lifts the balls up over the bumpers and into the robot. This can turn an entire side of a robot into a collector.
-By using this, teams were able to greatly speed up their collecting of balls. By making them as wide as the side of a robot, teams were essentially able to just drive at a ball and collect it. This proved to be a huge asset for teams who were shooting, and teams who were stealing balls.

Drop-Down Intake, as seen by 1114, 1323, 987 and many others
-The drop down intake is a different variation of the Over-The-Bumper intake. However, instead of lifting the balls into the robot, it sucks the balls in through a break in the bumpers.
-By using this, teams can extend their reach of ball acquisition, as well as widen their range. In addition, many teams used this as a bridge manipulator as well.

Ball Transport System:
Rotating tower, as seen by 33, 973, 177, 78 and others
-Instead of just the shooter rotating, the entire tower/storage system and shooter rotated. In doing so, balls entered the same way every time.
-In doing so, the teams who used this were far less prone to jamming as the balls would enter the tower the same way every time.

Perpendicular Entry” Tower, as seen by 971
-971's tower and intake system put the balls in around a corner, greatly reducing their risk of jamming.
-Like the rotating tower, 971 rarely (if ever) had ball jams, keeping their shooting consistent every match. Combine that with their lightening quick ball elevation, and 971 was a force.

Ball Scoring System:
Arm/Shooter combo, as seen by 548, 330, 1323 and others
-These robots had a shooter attached to an arm, allowing them to get their shooter up to the top basket, and pop the shoots out from a much closer distance.
-Many teams had an issue getting consistent key shooting throughout the season, but by having the shooter on the lift, the teams were able to greatly increase their consistency. Most of these teams also acquired the ability to shooter from distance, allowing them to circumvent defense.

Rotating Wheel Shooter, as seen by 1114, 610, 118, 1717, 399 and many, many others
-The rotating shooter is exactly as it sounds: A spinning wheel acting as a shooter, on a rotating device so it can point in different direction
-By using this design, teams could target a basket and face it with a turret design, and then shoot from a distance. By tracking the target well, teams using this could avoid defense and put in a lot of points.

Bridge Manipulator:
The Utility Arm, as seen by 67
-67's Utility Arm allowed them to acquire balls, go over the bump, and manipulate the bridge. This arm would push the bridge down with little effort.
-The utility arm was built to be robust, so 67 would always be capable of manipulating the bridge. It could quickly and easily push the bridge down to allow 67 to drive on smoothly.

Bump Crossing:
Large Pneumatic Wheels, as seen by 1114 and 2056 and many others
-These teams use large pneumatic wheels in their drive systems, which allowed to simply drive over the bump, quick and easy, forward or backward.
-By relying on the type of wheels they used, these teams had a passive device that worked every time, no failure. This gave them more time to work on other robot functions and gave them and even more robust design.

Drop-Down castor wheels, as seen on 254, 971, 111 and others
-This system consists of a caster wheels (or set of wheels) on the bottom of the robot that pop out, lifting the front of the robot high enough for the front wheels to drive on the barrier.
-This system worked well because it allowed teams to just activate the wheels, and then drive their robot right over the bump, quick and smooth.


Bridge Balancing Aid (i.e. Stinger, etc.):
FRC1986, The Teeter-Totter Talons
-1986 had a pair of pneumatically powered 'talons' that would push down and aid in the balancing of the bridge.
-With the aid of the talons, 1986 could not only push up on the bridge to even it out, but they could even brace the bridge from falling. Quick and effective. With the addition of the Twin Tucking Tabs, 1986 was a balancing machine.

Four Bar Linkage, as seen by 33, 469 and others
-The four bar linkage is a simple balancing system, in which a mechanism made up of a series of bars is pushed down, lifting up the bridge.
-This system is slightly more complex than the drop down piston, but is considered more effective because the device can reach outside the robot's frame perimeter.

Drop down Piston, as seen by 148, 2056, 1114, 2337 and others
-The drop down piston is simply an air cylinder with a piston-mounted Caster wheel (or some other type of wheel that can roll in multiple direction) that pushes the robot (and as a result, the bridge) up, and allows the robot using it to continue driving to complete the balance.
-This is a much simpler method than the 4-bar linkage, but not viewed as as effective since the robot is limited to having it within their bumpers, reducing how much they are able to drive onto the bridge with it deployed. Still, this design has proven very effective to many teams, and has resulted in the first ever triple balance (by 148), and many thereafter.

I think this covers many of the updates. As always, if I made a mistake, let me know.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Adding to bridge manipulators:

Passive downwards manipulation. Teams with tusks or wedges (e.g. 233, 1114, to ashamedly toot my own horn, 694) could drive into the bridge while pushing it down, instead of driving up to it, slamming it down, fiddling so that it didn't hit the bumpers or whatnot, and then driving up the bridge.

Passive upwards manipulation. Teams with frames angled upwards (e.g. 3847, 118, and some other team used this during elims somewhere very consistently) could lift the bridge up to allow other teams onto the bridge first. This created two advantages - 1, teams without a manipulator or an effective one could drive up very easily, and 2, teams with low traction could end up on the bridge first, allowing the robot that pushed it up to follow it up.

IMHO, 118's in a category of their own. Their entire frame was built for passive bridge manipulation - both pushing it down and lifting it up - and a good portion of their mechanisms were devoted to balance assists. They had a beautiful system to assist a double balance, complete with lights to indicate an unbalanced v balanced bridge. And that's all before their stinger.

The decision to have the shooter face one side by default, and have the acquirer/bridge manipulator on the other side allowed teams to execute an auton in which they backed up to and scored balls from the coop (or in 254's case, the alliance bridge). Off the top of my head, 341, 233, and 254 pulled this off.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Latest updates are up!
Updates are in:
Bridge Balancing Aid (118's Lifting Mechanism)
Bridge Manipulator (Wedges, Angled frame)

Drives:
Swerve Drive, as seen by 16, 1717, 973 and others
-Omnidirectional drive system allowing teams to move in any direction, anytime.
-The Swerve Drive in 2012 aided teams in a variety of ways. With it, teams were able to drive onto the bridge on either the long or wide orientation. It also gave teams an amazing ball intake ability, allowing them to turn to any direction to acquire a ball. By avoiding defense robots, and traversing the field and acquiring balls quickly, Swerve drives had a huge advantage this year.

Ball Acquiring System:
Multi-Directional Drop Down Intake, as seen by 973,177 and 2415
-A drop-down intake system consisting of a series of rollers and urethane belt that sucked the ball into the robot, no matter what part of the device the ball contacted.
-This system gave the teams using it an amazing intake ability, being able to touch a ball with any part of the system and have it be acquired. This gave teams a lot of leeway when going to acquire balls, having a smaller chance of missing and not acquiring the ball.

Over-the-Bumper Intake, as seen by 469, 2056, , 2826, 341 and others
-The over-the-bumper intake system was a very common design in 2012, with many dominating teams using it. Essentially, it's just a collector system that drops out over the bumpers and lifts the balls up over the bumpers and into the robot. This can turn an entire side of a robot into a collector.
-By using this, teams were able to greatly speed up their collecting of balls. By making them as wide as the side of a robot, teams were essentially able to just drive at a ball and collect it. This proved to be a huge asset for teams who were shooting, and teams who were stealing balls.

Drop-Down Intake, as seen by 1114, 1323, 987 and many others
-The drop down intake is a different variation of the Over-The-Bumper intake. However, instead of lifting the balls into the robot, it sucks the balls in through a break in the bumpers.
-By using this, teams can extend their reach of ball acquisition, as well as widen their range. In addition, many teams used this as a bridge manipulator as well.

Ball Transport System:
Rotating tower, as seen by 33, 973, 177, 78 and others
-Instead of just the shooter rotating, the entire tower/storage system and shooter rotated. In doing so, balls entered the shooter the same way every time.
-In doing so, the teams using this design ensured balls entered the shooter the same way every time. This resulted in more consistency as far as shooting was concerned.

Perpendicular Entry” Tower, as seen by 971
-971's tower and intake system put the balls in around a corner, greatly reducing their risk of jamming.
-Like the rotating tower, 971 rarely (if ever) had ball jams, keeping their shooting consistent every match. Combine that with their lightening quick ball elevation, and 971 was a force.

Ball Scoring System:
Arm/Shooter combo, as seen by 548, 330, 1323 and others
-These robots had a shooter attached to an arm, allowing them to get their shooter up to the top basket, and pop the shoots out from a much closer distance.
-Many teams had an issue getting consistent key shooting throughout the season, but by having the shooter on the lift, the teams were able to greatly increase their consistency. Most of these teams also acquired the ability to shooter from distance, allowing them to circumvent defense.

Rotating Wheel Shooter, as seen by 1114, 610, 118, 1717, 399 and many, many others
-The rotating shooter is exactly as it sounds: A spinning wheel acting as a shooter, on a rotating device so it can point in different direction
-By using this design, teams could target a basket and face it with a turret design, and then shoot from a distance. By tracking the target well, teams using this could avoid defense and put in a lot of points.

Bridge Manipulator:
The Utility Arm, as seen by 67
-67's Utility Arm allowed them to acquire balls, go over the bump, and manipulate the bridge. This arm would push the bridge down with little effort.
-The utility arm was built to be robust, so 67 would always be capable of manipulating the bridge. It could quickly and easily push the bridge down to allow 67 to drive on smoothly.

Wedges, as seen by 1114, 233, 118 and many others
-A very simple concept, this design includes a mechanism that lowers down and drops the bridge, allowing the using robot to just drive into the bridge. No strings attached.
-The benefit of this design is that the utilizing robot does not need to take much time to lower the bridge. Where an arm pushing down the bridge has to stop and push down (careful not to get their bumpers caught on it), a robot with a wedge simply has to drive into the bridge. Smooth and easy.

Passive frame angle, as seen by 11 and others
-Another simple concept. The robot's frame is set at an angle that allows them to tilt the bridge (usually upwards) by just driving into it. This generally allowed a team to help another team with no bridge lowering device get on the bridge.
-The beauty of this design is that it is passive. It will "deploy" every time, since it is a built-in robot feature. As long as the robot is built robust enough, a team using this will always be able to manipulate the bridge.

Bump Crossing:
Large Pneumatic Wheels, as seen by 1114 and 2056 and many others
-These teams use large pneumatic wheels in their drive systems, which allowed to simply drive over the bump, quick and easy, forward or backward.
-By relying on the type of wheels they used, these teams had a passive device that worked every time, no failure. This gave them more time to work on other robot functions and gave them and even more robust design.

Drop-Down castor wheels, as seen on 254, 971, 111 and others
-This system consists of a caster wheels (or set of wheels) on the bottom of the robot that pop out, lifting the front of the robot high enough for the front wheels to drive on the barrier.
-This system worked well because it allowed teams to just activate the wheels, and then drive their robot right over the bump, quick and smooth.


Bridge Balancing Aid (i.e. Stinger, etc.):
FRC1986, The Teeter-Totter Talons
-1986 had a pair of pneumatically powered 'talons' that would push down and aid in the balancing of the bridge.
-With the aid of the talons, 1986 could not only push up on the bridge to even it out, but they could even brace the bridge from falling. Quick and effective. With the addition of the Twin Tucking Tabs, 1986 was a balancing machine.

Four Bar Linkage, as seen by 33, 469 and others
-The four bar linkage is a simple balancing system, in which a mechanism made up of a series of bars is pushed down, lifting up the bridge.
-This system is slightly more complex than the drop down piston, but is considered more effective because the device can reach outside the robot's frame perimeter.

Drop down Piston, as seen by 148, 2056, 1114, 2337 and others
-The drop down piston is simply an air cylinder with a piston-mounted Caster wheel (or some other type of wheel that can roll in multiple direction) that pushes the robot (and as a result, the bridge) up, and allows the robot using it to continue driving to complete the balance.
-This is a much simpler method than the 4-bar linkage, but not viewed as as effective since the robot is limited to having it within their bumpers, reducing how much they are able to drive onto the bridge with it deployed. Still, this design has proven very effective to many teams, and has resulted in the first ever triple balance (by 148), and many thereafter.

Drive brakes, as seen by 1507, 1718 and others (videos not available)
-Many variations of the drive brakes mad an appearance in Rebound Rumble. The basic principle is that some sort of mechanism would engage and prevent the robot's wheels from moving. Doing so prevented the robot from rolling as the bridge tipped. Some variations include: 1507, who had a motor/winch-driven caliper that stopped their wheels from turning. And 1718, who shot a block up against their center wheel.
-The drive brakes were a useful balancing mechanism because they aided in balancing no matter where on the bridge the robot was. A "stinger" was only really useful if the robot was on the outer side of the balance. The drive brakes allowed a robot in the middle or the other side of a triple balance to aid in balancing.

The Man on a Ledge device, by 118(Picture)
-The Robonauts really thought outside the box this year, with a risky design that was really stretching the definition of the rules. The Man on a Ledge design, as it has been termed, was a device that attached to the side of the bridge, and in an amazing chin-up like motion, lifted the entire 118 robot off the ground and into legal bridge balance position. Although the device was ruled illegal for grappling with the bridge (violation of G10), it was an amazing bit of ingenuity by The Robonauts, and though it's loss didn't seem to hurt their season finish too much (Newton Champions), it could have certainly changed many things in the course of its use.
-This design would have been so effective because Endeavor (118's robot) was supported solely by the bridge (required to earn balance points), while taking up absolutely no space on the bridge. So essentially, a triple balance would be as simply as a double, a double as a single, and a single as... well, nothing.
Thread about the device

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

67's utility arm is significantly overlooked in this thread.

It was their intake.
It was their ball delivery system.
It was their bridge lowering device.
It was their bridge stabilization device.
And due to 67's gas shock implementation, it was guaranteed to lift itself off of the floor while performing bridge stabilization after the buzzer sounded.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I agree. I think that, since 67's arm did so much, I might take it out of any of the set categories and just give it a "Special Design" section.

I never got the chance to examine 67's arm. Could you explain this gas shock thing to me? It obviously worked well for them, but I wasn't aware of anything like that.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Another amazing thing about 67's arm that no one really knows about: It has driven wheels on the end. That is why their triple balance is usually so lightning fast: not only does it act like a typical triple balance "stinger", but once the bridge starts coming up, the end of that arm acts as part of their drive train to push the three robots those last few inches to get them balanced.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

The utility arm, when resting on the ground, also rested on perfectly-positioned gas shocks. This meant that if the utility arm was down and the robot was picked up off the floor, the arm would rest on the gas shocks. The motors on the arm could overpower these shocks, taking the wheels to the floor (see Chris's note) to act as a 'stinger' when the bot was on the bridge. Yet once power was cut to the motors (at the end of the match) the gas shocks had enough force to backdrive the motors to the ground pickup position, ergo off the floor if the bot was on the bridge.

Forgot about that part... I didn't notice it while talking to them, but I definitely noticed it when I watched them triple balance on the Archimedes practice field before elims.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

1986's utility arm was also much more than just a balancing device,

It was their ball intake
It could lift the bridge for an opposite robot
It could lower the bridge
It could reach balls under the bridge
It was a "push up" stabilizer to balance as the last robot on
It was a shock absorber to stabilize the balance as the first robot on
It would automatically lift after the buzzer

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Thanks for putting this together, it's a pretty sweet thread. Just to clear something up: 1507's brakes did not drive a pin into the gearboxes. Our brakes were literally caliper bicycle breaks purchased from amazon and mounted so that the pads apply pressure to the sprockets on our central wheels. I'll see if i can dig up some pictures or video.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Thanks for the clarification Brian. The whole pin thing was something I was told by one of the 1126 kids. I guess there must have been some miscommunication from A to B :)

Some pictures would be great. Obviously there won't be much in terms of match video of drive brakes, so I'd really appreciate a visual of your brake system!

On another note, as far as 67's Utility Arm and 1986's Talons go, I'll give them their own special category that can properly display their awesome! If anyone has any up-close picture or video of The Utility Arm and The Talons, I think it would make the special category that much more useful, since my intended purpose for that category would be to show devices that don't fit into any one and single category, but are great pieces of ingenuity that teams in the future could really learn something from studying.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Best I can find is this: http://www.warlocks1507.com/gallery3...eason/100_0072

You can see the calipers pretty clearly above the center wheel. What isn't visible is the window motor that's driving a winch that pulls the cables.

Edit: I just took a few pictures since I'm at school where the robot is. I'll upload them when I get home.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

As requested, pictures of the 1507 braking system:

Calipers shown on center wheel:


Window motor mounted with wires coming in:


View from other side of motor with spool for wire:


Any questions, feel free to PM me or just reply to the thread!

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Thanks a lot Bryan!!

These pictures will make a great addition to the design log! Your contribution is very much appreciated :D

Really nice design, by the way. 1507's entire robot is great!

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

This is a bit nitpicky, but the rotating tower designs really weren't built to prevent jamming. The main reason someone would want to do something like that would be to ensure that balls feed into the shooter the same way every time. The teams that didn't do that either didn't rotate their turret very far or used some other mechanism to load balls into the shooter.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Don't worry about being nitpicky. I'll make the appropriate change now.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

1986 reveal video showing arm functionality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCNUglCBD_M
Match video with several balances
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxVGk77nMH0
Talons functionality as first or last robot on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef3Ie2Qft8I
Triple balance practice with talons catching the bridge tip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THB9xs8xXkU

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

1114's a nice fit for that category too, then. Their bridge manipulator had "hooks" at the bottom that could latch onto alliance member's bumpers/bumper frames so that they could drag robots up behind them.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

Hey all!! So, I'm not sure how many people know this. But Kickoff is tomorrow. I know it's been kept on the "down low" pretty well, but I think it's time the secret got out. Kickoff is TOMORROW!! I'm sure you're all pumped, in one way or another! With our annual ceremony that heralds the beginning of "The Time of Little Sleep", I thought it might be helpful to bring this thread back to life.

For those of you who don't wish to go back and look at the opening post, the below is a list of CD-member suggested designs considered "The Best of 2012". I'm reviving this because the entire point I made this thread for was in hopes that it would inspire people for their designs on future robots. For example, the ones everyone will begin planning tomorrow! I hope this list inspires some of you. Obviously not all the categories will line up with the game we are shown tomorrow (Or maybe they will! The picture of Rick Astley may mean The GDC is trolling us and just using the same game...), but hopefully someone will find some inspiration here!

Best regards on the 6-week journey we all embark on tomorrow! I am Looking Forward to what everyone comes up with!

-Leeland
__________________________________________________ ______________
Drives:
Swerve Drive, as seen by 16, 1717, 973 and others
-Omnidirectional drive system allowing teams to move in any direction, anytime.
-The Swerve Drive in 2012 aided teams in a variety of ways. With it, teams were able to drive onto the bridge on either the long or wide orientation. It also gave teams an amazing ball intake ability, allowing them to turn to any direction to acquire a ball. By avoiding defense robots, and traversing the field and acquiring balls quickly, Swerve drives had a huge advantage this year.

Ball Acquiring System:
Multi-Directional Drop Down Intake, as seen by 973,177 and 2415
-A drop-down intake system consisting of a series of rollers and urethane belt that sucked the ball into the robot, no matter what part of the device the ball contacted.
-This system gave the teams using it an amazing intake ability, being able to touch a ball with any part of the system and have it be acquired. This gave teams a lot of leeway when going to acquire balls, having a smaller chance of missing and not acquiring the ball.

Over-the-Bumper Intake, as seen by 469, 2056, , 2826, 341 and others
-The over-the-bumper intake system was a very common design in 2012, with many dominating teams using it. Essentially, it's just a collector system that drops out over the bumpers and lifts the balls up over the bumpers and into the robot. This can turn an entire side of a robot into a collector.
-By using this, teams were able to greatly speed up their collecting of balls. By making them as wide as the side of a robot, teams were essentially able to just drive at a ball and collect it. This proved to be a huge asset for teams who were shooting, and teams who were stealing balls.

Drop-Down Intake, as seen by 1114, 1323, 987 and many others
-The drop down intake is a different variation of the Over-The-Bumper intake. However, instead of lifting the balls into the robot, it sucks the balls in through a break in the bumpers.
-By using this, teams can extend their reach of ball acquisition, as well as widen their range. In addition, many teams used this as a bridge manipulator as well.

Ball Transport System:
Rotating tower, as seen by 33, 973, 177, 78 and others
-Instead of just the shooter rotating, the entire tower/storage system and shooter rotated. In doing so, balls entered the shooter the same way every time.
-In doing so, the teams using this design ensured balls entered the shooter the same way every time. This resulted in more consistency as far as shooting was concerned.

Perpendicular Entry” Tower, as seen by 971
-971's tower and intake system put the balls in around a corner, greatly reducing their risk of jamming.
-Like the rotating tower, 971 rarely (if ever) had ball jams, keeping their shooting consistent every match. Combine that with their lightening quick ball elevation, and 971 was a force.

Ball Scoring System:
Arm/Shooter combo, as seen by 548, 330, 1323 and others
-These robots had a shooter attached to an arm, allowing them to get their shooter up to the top basket, and pop the shoots out from a much closer distance.
-Many teams had an issue getting consistent key shooting throughout the season, but by having the shooter on the lift, the teams were able to greatly increase their consistency. Most of these teams also acquired the ability to shooter from distance, allowing them to circumvent defense.

Rotating Wheel Shooter, as seen by 1114, 610, 118, 1717, 399 and many, many others
-The rotating shooter is exactly as it sounds: A spinning wheel acting as a shooter, on a rotating device so it can point in different direction
-By using this design, teams could target a basket and face it with a turret design, and then shoot from a distance. By tracking the target well, teams using this could avoid defense and put in a lot of points.

Bridge Manipulator:

Wedges, as seen by 1114, 233, 118 and many others
-A very simple concept, this design includes a mechanism that lowers down and drops the bridge, allowing the using robot to just drive into the bridge. No strings attached.
-The benefit of this design is that the utilizing robot does not need to take much time to lower the bridge. Where an arm pushing down the bridge has to stop and push down (careful not to get their bumpers caught on it), a robot with a wedge simply has to drive into the bridge. Smooth and easy.

Passive frame angle, as seen by 11 and others
-Another simple concept. The robot's frame is set at an angle that allows them to tilt the bridge (usually upwards) by just driving into it. This generally allowed a team to help another team with no bridge lowering device get on the bridge.
-The beauty of this design is that it is passive. It will "deploy" every time, since it is a built-in robot feature. As long as the robot is built robust enough, a team using this will always be able to manipulate the bridge.

Bump Crossing:
Large Pneumatic Wheels, as seen by 1114 and 2056 and many others
-These teams use large pneumatic wheels in their drive systems, which allowed to simply drive over the bump, quick and easy, forward or backward.
-By relying on the type of wheels they used, these teams had a passive device that worked every time, no failure. This gave them more time to work on other robot functions and gave them and even more robust design.

Drop-Down castor wheels, as seen on 254, 971, 111 and others
-This system consists of a caster wheels (or set of wheels) on the bottom of the robot that pop out, lifting the front of the robot high enough for the front wheels to drive on the barrier.
-This system worked well because it allowed teams to just activate the wheels, and then drive their robot right over the bump, quick and smooth.


Bridge Balancing Aid (i.e. Stinger, etc.) :

Four Bar Linkage, as seen by 33, 469 and others
-The four bar linkage is a simple balancing system, in which a mechanism made up of a series of bars is pushed down, lifting up the bridge.
-This system is slightly more complex than the drop down piston, but is considered more effective because the device can reach outside the robot's frame perimeter.

Drop down Piston, as seen by 148, 2056, 1114, 2337 and others
-The drop down piston is simply an air cylinder with a piston-mounted Caster wheel (or some other type of wheel that can roll in multiple direction) that pushes the robot (and as a result, the bridge) up, and allows the robot using it to continue driving to complete the balance.
-This is a much simpler method than the 4-bar linkage, but not viewed as as effective since the robot is limited to having it within their bumpers, reducing how much they are able to drive onto the bridge with it deployed. Still, this design has proven very effective to many teams, and has resulted in the first ever triple balance (by 148), and many thereafter.

Drive brakes, as seen by 1507, 1718 and others (videos not available)
-Many variations of the drive brakes made an appearance in Rebound Rumble. The basic principle is that some sort of mechanism would engage and prevent the robot's wheels from moving. Doing so prevented the robot from rolling as the bridge tipped. Some variations include: 1507, who had a motor/winch-driven caliper that stopped their wheels from turning. And 1718, who shot a block up against their center wheel.
-The drive brakes were a useful balancing mechanism because they aided in balancing no matter where on the bridge the robot was. A "stinger" was only really useful if the robot was on the outer side of the balance. The drive brakes allowed a robot in the middle or the other side of a triple balance to aid in balancing.

The Man on a Ledge device, by 118(Picture)
-The Robonauts really thought outside the box this year, with a risky design that was really stretching the definition of the rules. The Man on a Ledge design, as it has been termed, was a device that attached to the side of the bridge, and in an amazing chin-up like motion, lifted the entire 118 robot off the ground and into legal bridge balance position. Although the device was ruled illegal for grappling with the bridge (violation of G10), it was an amazing bit of ingenuity by The Robonauts, and though it's loss didn't seem to hurt their season finish too much (Newton Champions), it could have certainly changed many things in the course of its use.
-This design would have been so effective because Endeavor (118's robot) was supported solely by the bridge (required to earn balance points), while taking up absolutely no space on the bridge. So essentially, a triple balance would be as simply as a double, a double as a single, and a single as... well, nothing.
Thread about the device

Special Designs

FRC1986, The Teeter-Totter Talons
-1986 had a pair of pneumatically powered 'talons' that would push down and aid in the balancing of the bridge. But more than that, they acted as 1986's bridge manipulator, intake system, and so on and so on!
-With the aid of the talons, 1986 could not only push up on the bridge to even it out, but they could even brace the bridge from falling. Quick and effective. With the addition of the Twin Tucking Tabs, 1986 was a balancing machine. The Talons were one of 2012's most versatile and unique designs, surpassed by, if not totally rivaling, the next design on this list.
Post of a series of videos about The Talons!

The Utility Arm, as seen by 67
-67's Utility Arm allowed them to acquire balls, go over the bump, and manipulate the bridge. This arm would push the bridge down with little effort.
-The utility arm was built to be robust, so 67 would always be capable of manipulating the bridge. It could quickly and easily push the bridge down to allow 67 to drive on smoothly. To aid in balancing, the arm featured driven wheels that would help push The HOTbot and their balancing partners, and had gas shocks build into it that would force it up when power was cut to the motor when the match was over, ensuring the balance was legal!

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

What a beautiful thread revival.

Thank you for this; we'll definitely be using it as we teach and lead design in the coming weeks.

Re: FRC 2012 "Best Designs" Log
 

I'd like to apologize. I've found that some of the links to videos featuring the robots are now dead. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to renovate the necessary links as soon as I can.

Have an awesome Kickoff!

-Leeland