67's 2010 Climber
 

I was trying to find details on HOT's climber back in 2010 and how it was able to scale even after the end of the match. I couldn't find the relevant details on CD or their website. Can anyone direct me in the right direction?

From my understanding there was some sort of gas spring that made the climber normally closed so that once it was hooked on, even if the match ended, it would finish scaling. We discussed how to ppossibly build a climber to do that but we're stuck on exactly how to go about it.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Any sufficient amount of energy stored in an elongation should do it. Whatever your raising device is can be linked (mechanically or electrically) to release a restraint keeping your stored energy device (gas spring, spring, surgical tubing, whatever) extended. Once released by the claw's contact with the bar, the device will contract automatically and without further input from the rest of the robot.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

My understanding is that SCALING a tower only counts if it happens before the match ends.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Related question - Are you allowed to make your own "gas springs" by pressurizing and capping one end of an air cylinder to, say, 100 psi? Since it would be completely disconnected from the pneumatic system, could you avoid the 60psi limit and venting requirements of the FRC pneumatics rules? It would be very similar to buying a commercial gas spring, only less pressure and easier to integrate.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Just to add more context to this thread.

Video of 67 climbing on Einstein. https://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cmp_f1m2

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Just need to read a little bit further, section 3.3.1:

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Manual Section 3.3.1, Scales or Challenges are assessed 5 seconds after a match, or when all robots come to a rest - whichever comes first.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

I would infer from that, that robots can use the 5 seconds after the match to complete the climb. Probably a good Q/A question though.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

It basically means that your robot have to hold its position for at least 5 seconds after the field is disabled. In case your robot does not have a firm grip on the RUNG and fell off immediately after, then that does not count.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

It technically means both: if robots can maintain being scaled or if they are rising from stored assistance.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Not to be coarse, but can we get back to OP's original topic rather than arguing about the meaning of rules. Q&A is where that debate belongs.

I myself have also looked for any form of legislation regarding their 2010 end game but have come up empty handed. ):

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

The problem I'm having is how to have enough force in that stored energy to lift the 120+ lb robot up and have it a) be able to be held back by something simple, b) have it not be gigantic (weight-wise or volume-wise)and c) have it be relatively safe for students to assemble and test.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Kevin,

I can't provide any helpful details, but here's the video I've been looking at recently while trying to understand their approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI3N...=youtu.be&t=89.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Anything storing ~400 joules of PE is going to be somewhat dangerous to test (and perhaps to build). Depending on how clever you get, four 40-lb constant force springs from McMaster-Carr should get a robot off the ground if you hook them to a strap which you hook over the bar.

Between a ~30" long robot that's ~30" tall, you should be able to preload four of these (http://www.mcmaster.com/#9293k14/=10ohghg) on a (loose) strap that you lift up to the bar, and allow them to retract most of that 60". Pull a pin (or release a cam) and, uh, shoom!

(Not necessarily the best idea. I think you could go rather lighter if you just used a winch; but you certainly could use these, or surgical tubing, or maybe just some big honkin' coil springs. The key notion here is to hook on while something else is taking the pre-load, then release that something else to let the pre-load lift the bot.)

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Here is 67's engineering notebook I haven't looked at it but after every year hot puts together a notebook so you can review there designs afterwards if you would like. Hope this helps.
http://www.hotteam67.org/Archive/EngineeringDesign.html

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

I haven't used these before, but our team was initially thinking of trying these:

http://www.mcmaster.com/#9833t6/=10ohn3x


They have a remote release that I believe could lock or release the spring on demand.

Pre-loading them safely would be a challenge, but you could possibly go with more springs each with a lower force.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Kevin, you are correct about how 67's climber worked in 2010. I was a sophomore on the team that year and was one of the students who helped prototype it and build it.

Essentially we utilized four 200 lb gas struts (that were held back by a trunk latch we scavenged form GM's test vehicle scrap) that were connected to a rope and pulley system to pull our bot up.

In the match we just had to extend our arm up (while on the bump) and release our servo that held back our grappling hook to hang. One that servo was released, a 6 lb gas strut rotated a secondary arm that held onto the grappling hook by velcro. Once it had almost extended to its full length, a bike cable released the trunk latch causing the gas struts to extend, pull the rope in, and rip the grappling hook off the velcro so it could align with the center of the bot.

Does this help?

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Hmm, so that climber would be illegal per Question 504, yes?

That's...harder.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

We used 4 gas struts that were used with a reverse block and tackle system to pull ~36" of rope. It wasn't as easy as it looked. It took us 3 design iterations to get the pull force and the amount of rope pulled right to get a legal hang. It was also huge, being roughly 4" x 6", starting at around 21" and expanding to 36" in length within the frame.

We were just laughing about this the other night as the energy we used to hang actually came from a student. It had a giant crank we used to just pull on the hang rope until the struts were compressed, then just re-latched it.

It is a tremendous amount of stored energy, and must be treated with great care. The benefit of gas struts is they only release that energy relatively slowly though, so it's not too bad. We buried ours inside the frame and latched it with a cross-bar and car trunk latch.

The thing about hanging in 2010, was that it was of such a low point value that it only made sense to do at the last second. Roughly the equivalent of if scaling was only worth 2 points this year. Also, my interpretation of the rules make it so that it wouldn't count. I think the final explanation will be that you have to be up at the end of the match and stay up for 5 seconds for it to count. You really need something like that to be able to judge it, otherwise people would just let their motors back drive at the buzzer.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Sounds like a good Q&A question. The 15 points for the hang feels to me to be weighted about the same as the hang was in 2010 in comparison to the rest of the game.

I'm working through a few designs in my head of how to make this work and it just sounds complex to develop, especially in comparison to the design we have currently mocked up.

So the systems involved were essentially: something to extend the climber, something to release the gas springs, and a way to crank it all back in safely.

Am I missing something?

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't initially look at the 15" rule that way. But that answer to me says dangling a short robot (like 67's) from a winch cable is not legal.

By the way, 67's hanger in 2010 was awesome to watch!

David

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

My memory could be incorrect, but wasn't the hang worth the same as one scored soccer ball?

I think that's the gist of it.

Our climber was the most Rube Goldberg machine we've ever built. The only electronic component of our hanger was a single servo to deploy the hook. Once the hook arm started swinging, the rest was a mechanical process. The swinging hook arm pulled a bike cable that turned the trunk latch that released the gas strut rope winch.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

In 2010 it was worth two scored balls (2 points per robot hanging).

So its worth three high goals this year.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Yes, that makes sense. It seemed to take a lot less effort to score a soccer ball that year though, as you didn't have to cross the bump yourself for each ball. We would not take the time to set up the hang if there were available balls to shoot.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Well, no, it's really worth two high goals + parking on the platform (which very well might be a place you're shooting those high goals from). Very similar to 2010 in terms of point value when you realize it's just two scored balls more than the alternative.

Re: 67's 2010 Climber
 

Every time you put your rewind-structure on the top of the bot and your students started cranking, we joked about what they must have done to make you hate them so much :D