![]() |
Bumper Update
Hello!
I'm wondering if any other teams are having trouble with the bumper update (eight inches on each side, etc.) I expected there to be more concern over this, or is everyone too busy? |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
What questions and concerns do you have specifically? |
Re: Bumper Update
The 8 inches on each side rule has been the same rule since 2012 (not including 2015). It was not a surprise that the rule was included. The bumper rules are very similar to what we had in 2012-2014 too, other then the bumper zone, which isn't a huge change.
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
Now, that being said, there ARE other tricks you can try. Might be time to take a look at some of the 2012 intakes--I think 16, 67, and 330's intakes from that year will provide some insight. It's entirely possible to pick up a Boulder with a full bumper. Also, you could look at how wide your intake slot would be if you had your bumpers at maximum height--maybe there's a couple of extra inches there. |
Re: Bumper Update
We went back to another team's successful design from 2012 to try a little experiment....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXjgESNmnIw . |
Re: Bumper Update
we suspected that the rule would be enforced this way. Fortunately we figured this out early enough to design around it.
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
If all else fails, find a way to do an over the bumper intake, like several of the robots in 2012. Best to know this now than at the inspection table at the competition! |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
And I REALLY hope I'm right, because that could catch you. So, here's my question to you: If you stretch a string around your robot right now, in the bumper zone, is it 120" or less? And, how wide is the gap currently? (And the side length, if you don't mind.) Also, one other suggestion: read the rules on "support" of bumpers again. |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
Though we're playing around with the idea of an arm/sucker combo with wheels to suck up the ball and the arm to aim. |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
BTW, 26" is actually a rather narrow robot, even under frame perimeter being the dimensional driver. Many teams will build more "square" robots. |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
It was 21" x 35". Which, for the front to have the necessary width, we'd have to add 5 inches. 26 x 35 would = 122 (greater than 120), so if we take 2 inches from the back, we'd have 26 x 33 = 118 (which would fit). And it'd be square... However, trying to fit a 10" ball into a 10" hole would be practically impossible, so bump the hole up to 12", take 2 away from length, which would be 31 x 28 = 118. However, add 6 inches of bumper, and it wouldn't fit into the batter near the tower, making the low goal/climbing practically impossible. And that's why we aren't going in that direction. Sorry for the miscommunication. |
Re: Bumper Update
Ah, that makes more sense.
I'd definitely go over-bumper in that case. 10" ball, 15" to work with-3.25" for bumper width, so there's about an inch to play with on the far side of the ball. You could also leave a gap in the bumper to help center the ball going over. You'd have about 5" of gap available if you opted to use it, which could also make it possible for a full-height bumper to let the ball go under. (Haven't measured a ball to check.) Decisions, decisions... seems like some prototyping might be in order. |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
Why do you think the 28" + 6" side wont fit against the tower on the batter? Is your 28" the width or length? |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
31 wide 28 long, though we're working now with more of a trapezoid shape, with angled sides. I'm not entirely sure why this design wouldn't fit onto the batter. Maybe it'd get stuck on the large, angled surface? |
Re: Bumper Update
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:56. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi