Best Body shape?
 

What do you think the best shap of a robot body is?

i.e triangle
square
circle

one like a pancake, that can run downside up

then you can name it:

pompous snodwod

cause its name will be the same upside down and verse visa.

Best body shape is whatever you can make antimatter look like.. cause then you can transport your opponent to an alternate universe.. so, go for prototyping that... just be careful you don't make yourself go away on accident ;)
*edit*
Make it a hovercraft as well, cause an antimatter hovercraft robot would be awesome.

I wonder how many times FIRST has been asked THAT question after the kickoff meeting:

"Ive got this idea for our robot, but Im not sure if the rules allow it. Is transporting your opponent into a parallel universe against the spirit of the rules?"

but I digress.

I think for each year, teams should start out with a basic two wheel design, dragging a castor for stability

then only make the drivetrain different if absolutely necessary.

also, a round chassis that spins on two wheels can never get stuck in a corner, or against a wall. but a circular chassis is not easy to make.

you Know im rigging Gullwing Doors and a Flux-Compacitor up in the 2K4 Swampthing

Re: Best Body shape?
 

Driveman,
The shape of the robot shouldn't be determined ahead of time. As you design your mechanism, let the robot chasis grow organically around it. A perfect melding of form and function.

This way, you'll have plenty of room to integrate the kill-saws.;)

Seriously... a simple square "base" with some mechanism on top usually works well. Some teams design their robot chasis/drive ahead of time. Some tweak these designs to accomodate a "ball chute" or other mechanism. Others design the robot around the mechanism, or make the chasis itself part of the mechanism.

Do whatever you feel comfortable with.

John

Go modular. Being able to piece it all together easily, just putting together four fasteners and a wiring harness for every piece of your robot is essential for ultimate goodness. And make sure your left and right motors turn the same direction.

I have a really cool idea for a body. I spent a bout twelve hours straight on the designing. It was a real headach but i believe that it will be worth it. I already have wheels and gears drawn in. I dont have motors yet because i don't know what kind we will get. I will post it later after i get access to a scanner. B/c i had to draw it by hand.

Last year one of the body designs shot down for are KOH was an tirnagle thing with tow sides the same compltly drawing a blank on the name right here:o but basically it had treads on the edges sitcking out on all sides so we could run on all sides of the triangle and plate that came down to form a bridge up for the bins. We would stick to the top with friction pads of sort that woudl lift us off the groujd so the treads could also act as conveyor belts. But the idea was scrapped for one reason or another anyway Long story short build the shape arounf ur design not ur design around the shape

Most teams build square bases. Many of these teams have the resources and creativity to build the best base possible, yet the square bases still persist. This leads me to believe that the best body shape, within reason, would be a square.

I think y'all mean rectangular when you say square, right? I mean, otherwise, what a waste of space.

Hahaha, I that brings back memories of "Team such and such would like to request that if anyone has any...umm..flux?..compacitors, that they loan it to them. Thanks"

I am soo making sure 108 is the first to ask that at regionals, heh.

Anyways, I prefer Rectangle. It fits easily into the size requirments, gives you the maximum wheel base, gives you four definite sides for slamming up against things and bots with, and leaves you with easily machinable parts (no trying to figure out how to build a circular piece of sheet metal in the pits if your armor breaks loose :-P )

Bot Shape
 

Personally I am all for the sphere idea, but good luck getting that to work in a KotH.

A circular base has lots of advantages you dont have to worry about corners on the playing field, you dont have to worry about protecting your corners, and the strength of a perfect circle is very nice, but there is also the problem that the size limitations are rectangular, so your robot would have a major size disadvantage seeing as you would have to build up instead of out, which is horrible for balance.

Triangle is just odd although if you did something like a triganol pyramid (4 triangular faces) then it could be rather useful if you were flipped or something because with just 4 wheels, two along one edge and two along its opposite skew edge, you would always have driving wheels on the ground. But yet again this is faced with the size problem.

Square, or rectangular, is seemingly the best of what you listed simply because of the way size regulations are set up. With the box your robot has to fit in having a rectangular bottom, the best way to optomize space and sit as low as possible is to spread out as far as possible in that box.

Personally though I think a design for a pentagon shaped bot would be cool. However, you can't completely determine the shape of your bot until the game is released, you do need to build your robot around the game and not around what everybody else does. I know our bot will most likely be rectangular again this year, but we will once again be more concerned with our drive train than we will with shape. I know last year we were one of the few robots that had multiple gears and could shift them on the playing field.

Good luck with whatever you design though.

flux capacitors ehh
 

Technically, an electric permanent magnet motor with a flywheel could be considered a "Flux-Compacitor" (ahem flux capacitor):). Apply current and the flywheel spins up. Remove the current, and te flywheel continues to spin, inducing a magnetic flux field around the windings.:yikes:

Now gullwing doors? What is a gullwing door?

Details, details.

one thing that most teams forget is the max size your bot can be at the start of the match DOESNT mean the robot cannot be standing on its side when the match starts

too many people think the bottom of the outline box MUST be the bottom of the robot

it doesnt

you could build a bot that sits on the field on its side, and at the start of the match it falls sideways onto its wheels

that means you could have a base frame (what were the limits last year?) 3 feet wide and 5 feet long? or 5 feet wide and 3 feet long?

or a circular bot 3 feet in diameter?

this is one time when you literally need to think outside the box.

I remember this year team 19 did that. It was a really amazing thing to see. If anyone saw the Science Channel video, they were the team that was blocked by the Pius Princesses in the semi-finals.

The only problem with such a design is interference from other teams. This year such a thing would be illegal, but who knows what the game will be like next year.

Re: Bot Shape
 

one of the pros of a trianglular base (assuming you also go with a triangular drive train, don't know how you'd go about that though) is that you always keep all wheels in contact with the ground even when going over ramps and things at sharp angles. could be handy if they ever give us a really multi-leveled field with lots of ramped obstacles and stuff...

Gullwing doors are those doors that flod upwards to open, and have a piece of the roof attached to them. There were gullwing doors on the Delorean from Back to the Future. Thats whats he's making reference to.:cool:

In the famous words of the best button pusher ever, Nate Hatch, "The wedge has the edge" :yikes:

from an engineering perspective

given that you want maximum stablilty => widest footprint + low center of gravity

and you want light weight for max acceleration

and you want an enclose suface so nothing can get at your bots inards

then the 'best shape' would be a hemisphere that can turn on its center axis:

1. a sphere has the greatest enclosed volume for amount of material used => light weight
2. a circular chassis cant get cornered or stuck against any object
3. cutting the sphere in half gives you a wide footprint on the floor
4. it would be difficult for other bots to push you around, due to your curved outer hull.

Off-Topic:

Gullwing Doors:


On-Topic:
I think it's a shame that people are saying what is the best, and what is not. To me, the best shape is one that productivly holds all of the pieces that your strategy wants to do. How your wheels are doesn't necessarily have to be what your body shape is.

In 2002, Team 247 wanted to grab all 3 goals. They decided on a triangular shape, with 3 wheels in "crab-style). When all was said and done, weight issues caused the third goal-grabber to be scrapped. How well did it work? Finalists, Semi-Finalists, and Quater-Finalists at 3 regionals, including a 7th seed at one of them. (Note: This was 247's best year)


In 2003, 247 chose against the Triangle design because they wanted to make a wedge that wasn't always out. It had 4 positions, 0º, 45º, 90º and 'Closed'. When at 0º, the robot became an effective wedge that could fit under the bar, and push around teams such as the TechnoCats with seemingly no effort. At 45º it could be used to side-swipe the bins in autonomous to get more stacks downed. At 90º it could block portions of opponents view when strategically needed (such as a cornered bot, driver doesn't know what direction to turn). When closed, the robot had it's small footprint.

By having this mult-purpose wedge, weight was saved giving 247 room to create a suction mechanism, which aslo worked very well.

Also, the 2003 bot, with it's rectangular deisgn, had 3 wheels. That's right, 4 corners, 3 wheels. The layout of the wheels was the same as in 2002, but a different speed shifting style and wheel type.


Sorry this was so long, but my opinion is that your strategy should define your building type. Don't jump to conclusions about things. For example, the hemi-sphere.. using equations it is the best bang-for-your-buck, but if you have no use for a hemi-spherical design to do the job you need, what's the point. Same with every other shape.

Find out what you want to do, without a body design in mind. Then find a body type that suits it well.

I prefer the Hypercube shaped robot. More reading here here and here.

That way you can hide your contraptions in the 4th dimension, and expand your robot size at will :-)
Makes it easier to fit inside the constraint box. Puny FIRST limits only apply to 3 dimensions.

*lays 6x6x6 inch cube on the playing field, match starts and a huge 12x5x7 monster of a robot emerges*
muahahaha

but the outside shape of your bots body IS one of its critical functions how it interacts with the boundarys of the playfield, how suspectable you are to being pushed around, or having your wires ripped out

how suspectable you are to getting pushed into a corner or against a wall where you cant turn to get out

think of a jet aircraft - would you tell an aerospace engineer to lay out the engine, cockpit, and weapons systems, add wing and tail, and then just enclose everything with sheet metal?

obviously not - the outside shape of an aircraft affects its funtionality

and the outside shape of your bot affects how it moves and funtions on the field

and this is one of the things MOST teams forget about.

Thanks for all the toughts guys/gals. There is so much varity and thiught put into each post. That is why i love FIRST it is not about who wins or losses, it is about who helps others more. Thanks again every body:yikes:

Re: Best Body shape?
 

Honestly, I would either have to go with triangular or circular, because then it deflects the force of any oncoming robots better.

If you're aiming to build a robot that pushes other robots, however, rectangular would be better (possibly with a wedge) so you can direct your force over a very large area.

While form typically follows function, in the case of robots, form can determine function.

No, but I would tell him to make sure the body can handle the systems. In an aircraft, form and form of systems defines functionality. A box with engines, weapons, etc. won't fly.

I wouldn't tell the A.E. to design a body for an aircraft, then consider what parts can go where. If they do, 99% likely they will have to redesign the body.

Re-read my thread and my points about 247. Their goals were established, then their body shape. In the case of an military aircraft, some goals are 1) Fly 2) Fly fast 3) As much vision as possible for pilot(s) 4) Provide weapon power.

With those simplistic goals:

1) Body shape must be Balanced and Aero-Dynamicly shaped.
2) Engines must have high power and applicable efficiancy.
3) Cockpit must be in front of plane with windowed casing.
4) Weapon systems must be large enough for tasks to come and be balanced so #1 is not effected.

I didn't say design a body around components. I said to design a body around stategic goals.
Perhaps "pieces" was the wrong word, as that probably dictates direct component use. I meant "ideas", but pieces borderline fits.

Oh, the A-10 Thunderbolt II/ Warhog was designed around the General Electric GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm cannon. And the F4U Corsair was designed around their engines I believe too. HOWEVER, the goal of the design was to use said systems. Like a fast radial piston engine for high speeds was for the F4U. The Avenger 30MM cannon was to provide an increased capability in the aircrafts intended task of close air support, interdiction, and etc. missions.

now back on topic
Rectangle so you can make a "perfect" BLT if nothing else :).
(BLT = Brave Little Toaster). Also a rectangular design makes it easier to manufacture and assemble as its base is really just 90 degree angles.

<goes back to listing supplies to build a BLT in the dorm room>

Hexagon, like our omni bot.

this is a good example of the design two-step: mixing up What the machine should do and How it will be built

you dont want to do that!

study the requirements, determine what the machine needs to do, and why -

then figure out how the machine will do these things, how you will build and assemble it

being easy to build is not an engineering design goal - if it were you would see robots made of plywood, cardboard and staples

"well, yeah it tends to fall apart, but look how easy it is to staple back together!"

:c)

if being round, or spherical, or triangular has a functional advantage, then the round robots will perform better on the playfield - the extra design work to make the proper (best) robot shape will be WORTH the effort, if it means you end up winning.

I guess it depends on whether you mean "best" as in "best looking" or "best" for functionality.

If it is for functionality, it really depends on what you deisgn your robot to do and what it's goal is, that will determine the look of the robot.

Now if you just want it to look cool, i'd say round always looks cool, oh yeah and breathing fire..oh wait I don't think FIRST is starting any battlebot tournamanet yet :)

Well, the best body shape would not to have a body at all, the presence of mind of a body is much more complex and strong than an actual body.

Woah, that's freaky...

Anyway, us at 384 have prefered a 'wide is better than long' idea from Sparky 1 to Sparky 4. It gives us the most controll we have found.

see if I want to store it easily under my bed or in the closest (one of the requierements) and make it with only tools in my dorm room.... it has to be a rectangle or square! Now to go get some plywood, drill bits, a cordless Drill, a circular saw, dremel and hacksaw. And back to AutoCAD drawings and looking for motors, batttery, and all those nice electircal components... controls...... will build a bot when I got the money (either that or a model train layout) and know what componenets I want to build! (when i go out for CO-OP :D and def after get a real job)


Sorry I'm a little ahead there. But anway, Ken. Yeah you're right. You have to take it one step at a time. Needs assesment, analyse needs and establish goals, then brainstorm ideas, prototype, and come up with a final design, and then produce your final product.

Best Body Type
 

hmmm I think its a mix between Jennifer Lopez and Britney Spears...........I think im going with J-Lo on this one. :-) She'd definetly win some design awards!