Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

I think it's amusing how it looks like a miniature vex-sized model sitting on the table in this photo. :D

We tested the urethane belting stretch extensively with a single-belt jig ofr each conveyor, before we got the robot built. 9% stretch seemed to be the magic number for us. However, by the time we put 10 of them on a roller, there's about 300 pounds of force pulling on it. Quite the stresses on the rollers, considering shear stress, torsional load, and bending moment. If we were to do it again, we might go with slightly less stretch.

We do not anticipate any inspector troubles with the robot. Everything complies with rules and GDC posts. The smaller frame member above the wheels is structural; we often use it to lift the robot.

We anticipate weighing in at approximately 8 pounds under the limit.

As an interesting note, I'd like to mention that we started the season with $11 (yes, eleven) to our team's name and no certain sponsors. Thanks to fundraising efforts and the generous contributions of our returning and new sponsors, we have arrived with what you see here.

I would also like to thank the members of team 254 for their countless hours of design, CAD, and manufacturing work that was put into this machine.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

Yeah, I need a lesson :(

One, two, three, three

I fixed the issue :P

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

I won't be surprised if you do have trouble with it though. Sure the small member acrossed the top meets the wording of the rule. However, it doesn't meet the intent of the rule. I'm sure you will get to compete and everything fine. You might just have to lawyer with the judges a bit first. Honestly though, its hard to say without seeing it with the bumper on and getting a closer look. I'm just saying that refs sometimes read the rules differently then we do. Plan to have a bumper rules expert standing by for inspection. If the person that takes it for inspection doesn't seem confident and knowledgeable about every rule, they seem to assume that you don't know any of the rules.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

It meets the intent of the rule.

We independently ended up with what is functionally the same bumper frame support, and after seeing it welded in and built, I know it's plenty strong.

Either way, this is 968 you're talking about; They know what they are doing in terms of engineering and FIRST. A side bumper will never fail all season with those supports.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

This is one thing I will happily proven wrong over. But, I still see problems. I don't see it shattering or nothing, but I can foresee some cracking of the plywood. Good luck to anyone that is willing to risk it all on such a borderline legal robot. I for one, want 1.5" square tubing all around the base. Nobody is going to worry about that breaking.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

The 968/254 Robot this year has to be one of the best looking robots ever built in first. It's simple yet elegant, while still maintaining that beastly look that RAWC/Cheesy Poofs are known for. Absolutely amazing.

On another note, I just read on the 968 website today about how they had lost many of their sponsors over the season. I was amazing when I saw that you were still able to pull of making such an amazing robot. This goes to show many of the (We'll say less funded) teams out there that with determination and a bit of luck you can do great things.

Once again, that bot is sick.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

The intent of the rule is so that neither the bumpers nor frame break under impact.

Neither the bumper nor frame will break under impacts.

Intent met.

I apologize for my tone, but when you say borderline legal, you strike a nerve.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

Adam, I'm not trying to be rude. However, it seems apparent that we read different intent in the rules. When I read them, it seemed to imply that the entire back of the bumper must be supported(no spaces). On that robot, I see spaces. That is all I mean. Sure, the thing at the top runs along the top part of the bumper, and this does meet the technical wording of the rules. However, it doesn't meet the intent that I got from the rules(stated above).

With that said, let's let the judges decide what happens. Until then, let's use this thread to compliment the awesome design.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

I will beat on our tubing with a rubber mallet with complete confidence. It is structural, without a doubt.

Dave's calculations aside, I am 120% confident that there is no way our bumpers from last year or this year would break even if only supported every 12". We are using very high density, high quality plywood. It is extremely strong. I would have total confidence that if this year's robot was sitting at a stop and last year's bot t-boned it at 18.5 ft/s (with no bumpers on the front of last year's bot, mind you), this year's bumpers would be no worse for wear.

What is it going to take for teams to meet the bumper rules? a printout of a FEA of the robot? It's getting a little ridiculous when there's this much questioning of what is "structural" or not. If a team says a bar welded to their robot is structural, then that ought to be enough. If you can't make bumpers that don't break, well tough luck.

You can't legislate stupid. Teams will always shoot themselves in the foot even with all these restrictive rules designed to protect them.

$0.02

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

Please do. Any chance of the Poofs missing a match against us is chance enough for me.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

</endbumperhijack>

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

Love the use of the 06 pickup and hopper from you guys. Worked great then, hope it works well again.

Re: Team 968's 2009 Robot
 

Hehe we were studiing your Aim-High robot at the begining of the year; just like then, an amazing robot :)