Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Extra Discussion (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   pic: 213 Design (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43517)

Daniel Morse 07-02-2006 23:39

pic: 213 Design
 

Billfred 07-02-2006 23:42

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Looks nice--the best one-point robot I've seen yet.

Good luck this season!

Stuart 07-02-2006 23:49

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
I would love to see how those wheels of yours work.

sanddrag 07-02-2006 23:52

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
I want to see how the power gets from the motor to the wheel.

Peter Matteson 08-02-2006 07:59

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
I hate to be "that guy" but doesn't that ramp violate <S03> based on update 6? It also may violate <R04>.

See this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...9&page=1&pp=15

Greg Perkins 08-02-2006 08:10

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
seems like its outside of the allowed footprint. you guys may want to rethink this !

DjAlamose 08-02-2006 10:02

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
You can extend outside of the footprint! The only time that this cannot happen is for mechanism that throw or expel balls at a high rate. As long as the door does not move too fast there shouldn't be a problem as long as it is a low energy devise that does not exceed 3 m/s

Other than that...
How do you plan on getting to the goals? Is your robot powerful enough to push robots out of your way? Or is it fast enough to beat them there. From my experience Omni drive isn’t that fast or that powerful but highly maneuverable. I would also suggest adding side panels to the door to ensure that the balls don’t slide off the edge. Great conveyor design!

Ryan Foley 08-02-2006 10:20

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
I'm pretty sure this robot follows the rules.

1) that fold down ramp isnt launching balls, just letting them roll into the corner goal, so it doesnt count as a launcher that has to stay in the foot print
2) as far as the wedge rule, so long as the ramp is mounted above 8.5inches (the top of the bumper zone) they are not breaking any rules. <R04> states that parts of the robot between 0 and 8.5 inches off the floor must be 10degrees from vertical. Other parts should be designed to avoid wedging, so as long as they dont go using it to push against other robots they will be fine.

Sanddrag: this picture shows their prototype drive, you can see the belts they use to drive the wheels.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...&quiet=Verbose

To Team 213, my only suggestion (which you may have already thought of) is add something tall to the bottom of that unloading ramp, that stops your ramp from crossing through the opening of the corner goal, so you dont risk interefering with the scoring system. My old team had to do something very similar in 2004 to keep our ball collector from breaking the plane of the alliance station wall.

Elgin Clock 08-02-2006 10:25

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Are you going for the ramp, cause if you are, I would drive up your chute and score points for myself as well. lol

Horray for piggy-back bots.

Courtneyb1023 08-02-2006 11:19

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
I've read all of the rules and Q&A's pertaining to this issue, but there are conflicting opinions. ok, so what's the final word. Is this design legal or illegal?

*assuming there are no obvious violations and that the distance between all points of the "ramp" and the ground exceeds 8.5 inches.

Peter Matteson 08-02-2006 11:43

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
The problem is based on answers like the this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=424

And this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=439

Many of us have argued whether or not a ramp is a shooter. It depends on how you define the interaction of gravity in the situation.

When you look at question like this:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=327

It gets muddier because the ramp is delivering the final impulse on the ball in a ball ejection system.

While in another series of posts based on <R04> is sounds perfectly legal.

I know I'm going off a little off the point here but this was a "Devil's Advocate thing". I mentioned it so that team 213 would feel comfortable that they are within the rules and be ready to argue the situation with the proper Q&A in hand if necessary. With all the discussion on this board I think preparation for talking to the inspectors needs to be made for such a device.

Such as:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=552
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=547

GaryVoshol 08-02-2006 15:06

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Hopefully this Q&A is still in effect: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...hlight=gravity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q
Is a ramp which would allow balls to roll off the robot (and hopefully toward the corner goals) considered a shooter? The only force causing the balls to move would be gravity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A
This ramp would not be considered a shooter, but be sure it complies with <R04>.

It was written several weeks before Update 6 was released.

Although in our case it may turn out to be a moot point, as we may be too close to the weight limit to install a fold-down door.

kaszeta 08-02-2006 15:19

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Hey, someone else is using Kornylak transwheels...

ChuckDickerson 08-02-2006 15:43

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DjAlamose
The only time that this cannot happen is for mechanism that throw or expel balls at a high rate. As long as the door does not move too fast there shouldn't be a problem as long as it is a low energy devise that does not exceed 3 m/s

Could you point me toward the rule(s) or Q&A that substantiate this please?

Zoheb N 08-02-2006 15:52

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
sweet robot.. how are the omniwheels working for you guys

pyroslev 08-02-2006 17:41

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Simple idea. Love it. Gravity drops the balls in so no rule breaking, to my knowledge.

Just nice

Daniel Morse 15-02-2006 22:05

Re: pic: 213 Design
 
Everybody, thank you very much for your input. First off, I did not actually see that this photo had generated discussion (I'm rather new to CD) so I am seeing this long after you guys wrote your posts. Basically, I designed the dumping mechanism, a friend of mine designed the intake, and his father and another student headed up the wheels. Let me say, as the dump group designer, that post about violating the rules scared the living daylights out of me (less than a week left now). It was not until I continued down the posts that I realized that this would be a legal machine (and yes, we meet all of the general requirements in this drawing). As for the omni wheels, we actually ran into trouble with those trucks you see. The reduction was not high enough, and as a result, we kept drawing way too much current, hence blowing our 120 amp bus and draining our battery in about 2 minutes. We redesigned the mechanism, adapting the drive shafts to fit in the KOP gearboxes, and re-attached the gearboxes in the same configuration shown, and the drive works very well. Thank you for all your comments.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi