Turrets?
 

Is it me or am i seeing very few turreted robots this year?

Perhaps the gained versatility isn't really needed...

The finesse manipulating the balls in '01 doesn't seem to be making a resurgence this year with the tetras...

Re: Turrets?
 

I noticed that too, but my team is one of the few! I think that the added ability to turn our arm 360 degrees around our robot is a big advantage. Maybe not this year as much as some in the past, but still more beneficial than not having one :yikes:

Re: Turrets?
 

I think having a turret is huge in this game. I think a robot that can park between two goals, cap one, and rotate the arm 180* and cap the other one will have a big advantage.

Re: Turrets?
 

I've noticed few turrets. it can be beneficial in a way..depends on how you plan on scoring...our team always wants to do one but the amount of parts and design time for it never happens....

Re: Turrets?
 

We went with a turret this year planing that with six robots on the field doing precise positioning could get hard. Normally swing is limited to 30 deg left and right, but the arm is designed to have no front or back with the last two joints having 300+ deg of rotation and the base 180.

Re: Turrets?
 

The decision to turret or not to turret depends on the design of each individual robot.

My team decided that we would like to turret because it would allow us more precise manipulation of the tetras. It also gave us greater freedom to cap from different positions relative to the goals. We won't have to realign our robot if we approach a goal in such a way that we would ordinarily not be able to score any tetras. Instead, we can utilize our turreting mechanism, and spend less time trying to align the robot's base in the correct position.

This is especially beneficial to our robot because of the jumpiness we experience when turning. We decided to use a high traction, four wheel drive system for a strong pushing ability. However, there are always trade offs in mechanical design, so we sacrificed the ability to make smooth turns. If we were to rely on the reorientation of the drive base to cap a tetra, we would have a very difficult time getting the tetra to align properly. This is where the smooth turning action of a turret makes life alot easier for our operator and driver, and saves time.

However, different robots may not require the use of a turret to position themselves to score. Other robots may turn smoother, or move quicker, to make up for the lack of the mobility of a turret. So in the end, it all comes down to what a team decides is the right design for them. This year, it seems that most teams have not designed a turreting system for their tetra manipulators. This could be because they have compensated for the lack of mobility elsewhere in their design, they have decided to sacrifice mobility to keep their arm simpler, or they simply may not have come to the conclusion that a turret would be a necessity in the first place. It is a preference that is determined by many different variables, relating to the chosen design and strategical objectives of each team.

Re: Turrets?
 

We have a turret ... it is called a drive base that can spin about its center.

We went with a turret last year and found that rotating the robot about its center is easier for our drivers.

Re: Turrets?
 

I like turrets. These past two years, I think a turret has been/will be very useful for teams to use. I think that because it gives you tons of degrees around so you can place objects better and more efficiently. Sure, maybe I'm a bit bias, but I have not noticed any major mechanical problems with the turret we used last year...and so far this years. In my opinion, I think turrets will play a major role in who comes out on top. Viva la turret! :cool:

(If anyones team has a turret please PM with a link to your site or a place where I might be able to see a pic of it.)

Re: Turrets?
 

We went with a turret this year. Last year we discovered that with an arm and the way we build our bases it his difficult to get those fine adjustments. Our drivers however have bad habbits of not using the turret. I have a feeling it will be a big plus (if they use it.) I hadn't seen many turrets in pictures and am glad to learn that other people like them too!

Re: Turrets?
 

Turrets can be very helpful for teams with tetra storage devices as well ;). We are one of the few and proud turret teams.

Re: Turrets?
 

We have a turret that also extends in and out. It's great for quickly positioning tetras.

http://img94.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img94...10500024uh.jpg

Re: Turrets?
 

In my eyes, turrets just add complexity and weight to a robot. Building an agile drive train that is able to turn within its own footprint is much more beneficial. It will keep a sense of balance between all of your robots sub systems, keep both drivers busy during the matches, and add stability to your arm. There may be a game where a turret is beneficial (see 71 in 2003), but I feel there is no real benefit in this years game, and will only added unneeded instability and complexity to a robot design.

Re: Turrets?
 

Another specific instance where a turret was very useful was in 2002. Team 60 used one with great success. Being able to rotate a goal into or out of a zone was a very useful skill to have.

If you can get your driver and operator to coordinate themselves well and use a turret to it's fullest then you could justify the increased complexity of one.

Re: Turrets?
 

Yes... what Kyle said... "tons of degrees". :)

For this year, I think that a turret is needed, if it is used properly. We are in a unique position where we have a robust turret, actuating a mast that can move 22" vertically.

A turret is useful if operated properly. Robot drivers and operators who don't have experience in using a turret are not aware how to use it to its full potential. For us, in 2004, all the driver had to do was get close to the stationary goal and the arm operator would put the 2x ball into scoring position. Sometimes, this was even done over very large machines (71 @ IRI, 93 @ Midwest).

This year, we will see what happens. We are betting that a good turret will give us an edge. Also, since our driver and operator have 6 years of operation experience between them, we have another edge with regard to driver skill.

Like Kyle said... viva la turret.

Andy B.

Re: Turrets?
 

A turreting system was considered on 188 as one of our initial ideas, and remained quite a strong influence for a long time, but it ended up having to be abandoned in favour of something simpler both to design and build. In my mind they will be quite useful, mostly because of the reasons already mentioned. Im more inclined to say that turrets were involved in a huge amount of design schemes this year, but that these ideas were never transferred beyond paper for technical reasons. Depending on how you look at it, unfortunately or fortunately, you always have to design with the physical limitations of your team in mind. You could throw away a priceless idea when you work within limits, or gain one when you realise the simplicity and elegance that your boundaries can potentially provide.

Re: Turrets?
 

Personally I think turrets are very useful ideas but in this particular game not the right mechanism. Consider the way the goals are lined up. A robot that caps to one side (basically not the direction it drives in) can drive along the row of goals parallel with the driver's station and hit every single one. They can also drive along the row of goals from one end of the field to the other and make rows there. Many motor-driven arms can go the full way over the top of the robot allowing the team to cap goals on either side. In this case I believe a turret is very likely to just make more problems with wiring and weight.

Turrets were worth these things last year because there were a much smaller number of goals and therefore more people fighting over any given one. Really the robot:goal ratio was just 1:1 as opposed to this year's 2:3. More importantly the angles of access to the goals were severely limited...to the fixed goals most of all. You could come around from the back directly or on either side of the goal from the back. If you didn't want to do that you could fight your way up the stairs or try to reach over whoever it was sitting in your way. This meant that you had to be ready to cap from at least 3 robot positions to be able to take advantage of any situation. This assumes that coming directly over their front/back of the robot can be done from both the top of the stairs and the bottom of them. The two angles used to cap from on top of the platform can also be used on the ground. Most teams came from the front by the stairs because in the time it took a team to move around the robot guarding could easily run up to block. This means that it is very likely in reality more positions were actually used and needed while trying to dodge but once you have a rotating turret it is hard to count positions.

Pretty much I think the layout and number of goals makes capping them an entirely different game.

Re: Turrets?
 

We've got a turret this year. Having no machine shop, we spent 30-some man hours and made a gigantic sprocket with 200-some holes countersinked on both sides. Its also got huge cutout portions to reduce weight.

We were going to go all-out on the turret, but we couldn't solve the problem of running wires to the top and still be able to go 360. Out new strategy is to go head-on to a goal, and use the turret to fine-adjust the position of the arm.

Cap
Pull out
Repeat.

Re: Turrets?
 

oh man big ups to the turret teams this year.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...&quiet=Verbose

The initial plan was to turret then stack on the back, but the stacker in the back got in the road.....so now alls we gots is the turret.....2 tetras > 1 :)