How about something like this:

http://atvracing1.com/tazcar.htm

Its just an example, there are lots of companies that make sand rail and dune buggy kits. Its less expensive than a late model truck and less complicated to work on.

b That is true but a truck is more prone to becoming high centered. Who said we need a late model truck? All it's got to have is 4x4, automatic, and fuel injection and we'll be set. The sandrails are much less complicated to work on but all sandrails are only two wheel drive. And they can be fairly expensive. It depends on how it's equipped.

I agree, an old beater truck that has a mechanically sound drive train is probably the best value. I'd add power steering and brakes to the list.

As for the body we really don't care. Since it's only function would be to protect the "driver" ,we may be best off to strip it to the frame and fabricate a custom enclosure for the electronics.

BTW did anybody but me notice the reqjuirement for a parking brake operated manually from OUTSIDE the vehicle? Not that I think it will be difficult, just one more thing that needs doing.

Has anybody started a requirements list? We need one soon!

I noticed that also. I guess its just another item to think about. In looking at the whole project that will be one of the easier things to design, once you get an idea of how.

Hi everyone,

Chris,
I did not see the "out side parking brake" but I did see they wanted "E" Stops mounted at 4 or more points, (to be designated
later...) although I do not see any problems in doing any of this.
Time to review the rules again.

I think we maybe should leave the cab on, if nothing more than to cut down on work, there should be a drivers compartment with a manual override. Doing this makes sense when you think about moving the truck around, (I don't want to PUSH it UP Hill to the starting line, or to get it unstuck ) it just makes life easier.
As for the roof or the bed,
Form Fallows Function,
but it should look Quality .....
Nobody wants to Sponsor JUNK!

As to high centering the Dutch had a military truck (called a DAFT
if I remember right) that had 2 spair tires mounted in the center of the wheel base, on free wheeling axles.
When you high center, you just roll off!
If high centering becomes a problems maybe we could do something like this?

Has anyone been following the DARPA forum ?

We missed getting in on the magazine story,
I tried, but we haven't got enough "weight" (names,sponsors,etc.--
we don't even have a team yet!)

Chris made the right call in not publishing peoples names that
have not given their approval or permission.

Please take the time to e mail me with this permission and a short resume,
When I get enough "weight" I will go after getting us registered
And pursuing Sponsors

Geo.

Why would anyone post a good idea in the DARPA forum if it is what they are using to potentially win? This challenge is not about sharing like FIRST is.

Another thought came to mind about the vehicle platform. A Mercedes Unimog could work very well and I believe they came in diesel too. However, I don't know what types of transmissions they had and the vehicles are usually expensive and hard to find. A Jeep or truck would probably be just as good.

For front suspension, would you go with solid axle or IFS. Solid axle is more rugged and has more articulation but IFS responds and performs quicker at speed. IFS is much more complicated and more prone to breakage though. We'd have to get some advice/help form a place such as ORU if we went with an IFS setup.

hey everyone,
THE Las Vegas FIRST team 987! well since we are frankly the most active FIRST team in Las Vegas (and possibly the state of Nevada), our team was interviewed on the local ABC station (Channel 13) about the grand challenge. it seems very interesting, lots of money, but we dont have the rescources or the man power to do it on our own, im sure we would be interested though! we hope to soon digitize our interviews (we were also on the same station a year ago for placing 5th in Einstein at nationals). check out our website in the meantime. Anyone at all interested in a possible Las Vegas FIRST Regional or off season event? contact me, our team as early as next season could host an off season event.

AIM - joeassman22

email - see below

later
dave

Hey, remember us from Phoeinix? How you doin'? Anyway, I think you left out your sig by mistake for the e-mail and website.

I agree, especially with the manual override. It would be a lot easier to just drive the thing to a start point than to have to haul it there. But at the same time we should not hold onto a cab or any other bodywork too tightly. If there is a good reason to do things some other way then we should discard the cab. We won't know about good reasons one way or the other for a while yet. We need to get the system a little better defined first.

That's what I was thinking of. but if we do the navigation package right it shouldn't be an issue. As always we'll solve it in software ;)

I agree Chris, I am not "Locked" in to keeping the cab at all
form fallows function and all that...
If we get a "big 4" sponsor we might have to make some "product recognition" allowance

Greg, are you going to the "Sensor Expo"?(see other Delphi thread of this name)
Is anyone in our group? any one we know?

Geo.

How about "learning programs"?

Ooh.. this sounds like an interesting project.. some ideas that came to me about navigation:

People are talking about lil sensors to detect hazards.. no. Not gonna work at speeds of 30mph+. What we need is some kind of small radar.. or something with some decent range (100 ft or so). You can have those lil sensors for immediate stuff the radar wont detect.. but yeah.

Run the central command system off a computer (thinking athlon, P4.. ) running linux, it has support for GPS stuff I think in the newer kernels and it isn't going to crash over the 10 hour ride :-). The central system recieves input from several embedded systems providing input (sensors, radar, GPS, temperature, etc..). I think having seperate systems controlling everything would make it easier to debug and etc..

Ok, just my two cents worth.. I had more ideas, but i gotta run for now..

[edit] Another plus about using a Linux system as the central command system would be that you can do the navigational programming in practically any language (perl, C/C++, python, basic, asm, sh, etc.. ), thus opening up our project to many more programmers.. since it appears the programming is going to be key. Anyone can build a truck that will drive 250 miles through the desert.. the key is in the electronics [/edit]

I would argue to have a redundant computer system because it's one thing if your driveshaft breaks but it would look really bad if it failed because a wire melted or a fan got stuck or something like that.

I don't believe anyone could do it, honestly.

Granted, a lot of today's technology relies on computers and things to function. A lot of advances in technology have come as a result of breakthroughs in computing. However, it's a bit near-sighted to make it seem like all mechanical challenges have been solved.

The mechanical component of making a car drive itself isn't a walk in the park, by any stretch. It's certainly not impossible, but it's going to require as much effort and ingenuity as programming any computer, GPS, or artificial intelligence.

Sorry, but I tire of the prevalence of this attitude that suggests mechanical design is monkey's work and all success is a miracle of computer programming. Let's show a bit of respect to mechanical design for a change.

I completley agree with you M. We could produce the most amazing navigation system in the history of mankind, but that would get us nowhere without a vehicle of the same quality!

And visa versa I'm sure.