![]() |
[FTC]: Technical Question
Are we allowed to use VEXplorer MECHANICAL parts for FTC?
Thanks |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
You are allowed to use the metal, just not the motors.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Yes, but please don't use the vexplorer arm for our claw =.=
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
who said anything about the vexplorer claw :D
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
As good of an Idea as it is to use the claw (trust me I wanted to use it on our robot) I think using a rebuilt claw is "cheating". I know it's not against the rules but it's a cheap way out. If you want to use a claw. BUILD IT. We chose not to use it because we felt it isn't fair.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
Not a knock on your opinion, but I would have been happier if you had just said something like, "we built our own claw because we thought it would be more fun (or it would work better)." You seem to imply that a team using the Vex claw would be cheating, and I strongly disagree with that. |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
My feeling is that if it meets the needs and it is cost effective then use it. Spend the time you would have done making another part of the robot better, developing better code to control the arm, or working on more sophisticated strategies. Most highly complex systems are currently build from a majority of of off the shelf parts with a minimal amount of custom parts and software to tie it together. Using it and figuring out to best use it are two different skills. |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
You really think that? If so, then why are there huge arguments about Gracious Professionalism and about mentor/engineer built robots? If its made ina factory should you be allowed to use it? Would you use a prebuilt arm for FRC if you were allowed to? And if yes (unless you can't afford to build your own) then I think that that's really just sad. Also, what if a team can't buy the VEXplorer kit due to a small budget such as most FVC teams? Frankly, I don't see why using it should be allowed. I'm with fredliu on this one. |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
uhh sorry guys for the misunderstanding. I'm mentoring VEN's team. The reason I said not to use the claw was because I didn't think it would work well given the design of our robot.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
yea but its pre-made. That's really the only thing that bugs me. We didn't use it because we thought it would make other teams mad or something, so its not that I didn't consider it either. But yea, i see your point and I'm sorry for sounding a bit rash on that. its not like i'm going around sayng "no" to people who used it and giving them negative rep. or anything. Just saying that it seems kind of unethical.
But in this case..yea "to each his own." |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
I love the claw not for being a claw (I would never use it as a claw) but for what you can get out of it. Anyone that went to the New York FTC regional and watched our robot could see some vexplorer claw in use in the beginning of every match.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
To each his own... 575 abandoned the claw idea just because it didn't work very well for their design.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
My team used a claw in our robot, but we built it ourselves. It worked pretty well, we used some rubber for gripping. I actually never heard about the VexPlorer arm/claw until a couple of months ago. I learned yesterday at NYC/discovering team 546 on youtube that for what we wanted to do, it was more effective to design a ring stacking system, but in the midst of the competition, we learned that our robot was very good at controlling the hexes, which helped us greatly in the matches, especially when we realized who our best driver was.
From what I have seen, the vexplorer claw looks too big to take control of the hexes and not effective in grabbing pvc rings. But yea, to each his own. It probably just hurts the team on the innovate award. |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Quote:
My point was that all things being legal, if you were develop a design that requires a certain function (I'm dropping the arm so we don't get bogged down in that), and you have a choice between a commercial product that fits your needs and budget or making something yourself that is of equivalent ability, most engineers will go with off the shelf and put effort into other areas where custom parts are required. This argument goes out the window though if you intend to or can develop something that performs better. Or if for some reason you can make it cheaper. Engineering is a balance between best performance, best cost, and best use of time. |
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
I saw a couple teams using the VEXplorer claw at the San Diego and Vegas regionals. A LOT of the teams using it were inexperienced rookie teams who didn't have the knowledge, resources, or time to build anything better. It allowed them to function okay, but most of the teams who built custom claws did a better job of grabbing rings. Personally, I think the VEXplorer claw is a great resource for beginning teams, but any other team would be better off building their own.
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
I don't have a problem one way or another, but I do admire teams that take the time to build their own claw. Take Vexellent - their claw looks excellent, much more suited to Quad Quandry than the Vexplorer claw, I think. (http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/show...1196&catid=12)
|
Re: [FTC]: Technical Question
Would we be allowed to use the Vex Rack and Pinion system for our FTC bot? Or for that matter, is there any rack and pinion system legal in FTC?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:39. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi