Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I've been watching this thread closely and today I finally sat down and tried to compile some of the ideas posted, some of the ideas from my team and some of my own.

Here's what I came up with. Please see attached PDF for some examples of how it can be used to fit different minibots.

If something like this sticks, we can define exactly where the wholes would be so other teams can take it into account when building their minibots.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

The tray I suggested carried a tab-and-pin stand-in (the wire at the back).

The reason for the platform is that it can carry anything. Stability--and getting it to the pole or the base--is the problem of the team who builds it, but as a caution to those teams: If the minibot isn't reasonably secure, stable, and reliably targeted onto the post however it needs to go on, teams will not trust you with their minibots. As such, it is in your best interest to build a stable, secure platform.

I also like the tab-and-pin setup that darist posted as being likely to be easily fit to any minibot and reasonably secure. I think the biggest problem is that the cutout is a bit big, such that a small minibot can fall right through, but that's easily dealt with by decreasing most of the size as needed and only leaving a wide pole-contact area.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I see how the C-Channel/Peg + Holding Plate method would work, but could one also put some sort of "locking" mechanism on the C-Channel/Peg so that if the robot was in a collision, the MiniBot would not fall out? Or is that making the standardized method too complicated? I know most (if not all ) teams should be able to attach the C-Channel/Peg and Holding Plate, but the locking mechanism (ie a tiny pneumatic cylinder) may pose a challenge to the not-so-pneumatic-inclined teams or rookies.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I thought it specified that you had 10 seconds after the match "Ended" for stuff to come to rest... Does that include minibots

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I wish I knew. No questions have been answered by Q&A yet.

BTW, that's <G68> that says that, for anybody wondering.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Sorry, not to be negative, but I don't think that this will work. There is no universal Minibot, so there is no universal deployment system. If teams collaborate and make identical minibots, then there would be a greater chance the deployment systems being universal. Our team's minibot is looking like it will be a rounded shape, which would not fit in a deployment system for a boxier robot. Likewise, boxier robots will not fit into our deployment system. I would recommend that the closest thing that there is to a universal deployment system is a flat sheet of metal with holes drilled in it at a regular interval (1/2" maybe?) with didviders that could fit into the holes and be secured to hold the minibots.

Sorry for being slightly negative, I am open to any ideas if people have them.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

You can build a device that can accommodate 90% of minibots. Will there be outliers? Sure. But if you can accommodate 90%, then you have a much better chance of getting the points, should you not have a minibot of your own.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

After reading this thread I think the solution with the highest probability of success is to build a deployment system to go with the minibot you are wanting to lend out. Having the interface with the hostbot be a few outputs and two C-clamps to their chassis. Any team with resources to build an effective minibot should be able to have a package system that can be clamped to another bot. This could include one pre-charged air tank, a small bore piston and a solenoid. If they already have the max number of tanks provide for splicing into their system.

There you go, two wires, two C-clamps and a programmer with baseline code to add a button press on their controls. You could even have one button connected to a USB and a USB splitter available. That way you know your $200+ minibot doesn't become roadkill in midfield.

K.I.S.S.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Here are my thoughts on a deployment mechanism, a simple slide which some type of stop at the bottom. The MB isnt going anywhere and the simple attachment leaves total autonomy for teams to design their own minibots and deployment mechanisms.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

1) HB will provide a secure fixed 'ceiling' of at least 12"x12" for the deployer which is fixed relative to the HB during the entire match. It does not move at deployment time (it is removable for MB loading - prematch)

2) The lower support provided by the HB consists of 2 or 3 (configurable) vertical 1/4" od pins on which the MB is placed. These pins have optional 'stops' which are 1" donuts with 1/4 hole that can be placed securely on the pins, allowing the MB owner to decide these dimensions (up to a limit of 4" high) The orientation of the pins horizontally (both x and y axis) is adjustable to allow for varying MB designs. The top height of all pins used are the same, but that height can be adjusted in unison (or alternately, the height of the ceiling can be adjusted) The donuts heights can be adjusted independently. MB must have 2 or 3 holes to interface with these pins. If you are having trouble visualizing this, the pegs/donuts basically look like tiny arena towers without targets at the top.

3) HB is responsible for accurate alignment to pole with respect to left/right. (assuming the MB is properly aligned to the HB via the pin positions)

4) MB is responsible for proper alignment for inboard/outboard movement so that HB horizontal deployment is far enough to trigger MB via pole, but no so far as to mash the MB against the pole.


5) At deployment time, the pin(s) are thrust horizontally at the pole (leaving the ceiling behind) The HB is permitted to move the entire pin/ceiling assembly in any direction prior to the horizontal DEPLOYMENT to the pole


6) One additional 1/4" pin can be optionally fastened to extend down from the ceiling in an arbitrary location.

7) The MB gets or two mechanical signals to help it know when to go. The first comes from the ceiling pin (if used). Since the ceiling is fixed, the pin can be used to trip a switch as the MB moves past it. The second signal is contact with the pole.

8) MBs are best designed to tolerate high speed horizontal deployment.

9) HB will commence ‘backing off’ away from tower no less than 3 seconds after full deployment extension and will be completely out of the deployment zone no later than 6 seconds after full deployment.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

How about this: if you want to lend out a minibot, design a simple enough deployment system that you can actually bring it to the competition and bolt it onto other robots on the spot. Something simple like James' bracket idea would seem to invite that possibility.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I think it would be part of the Hostbot, but each hostbot would have to be re-inspected when the launcher is added.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

120 of the hostbot, as it's attached to the hostbot.

And, because you're adding parts, that's a reinspection of the hostbot right there.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

how would this work with the weight restrictions? would your bolt on thingy be part of the 15 lb MB weight or the 120 of the HB?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Are you saying that we should be standardizing the launcher so that we can ad the whole launcher-minibot combo to other teams' host bots?

Also, i like the idea of just having the universal delivery system be 2 12"-12" plates adjacent to each other by 90° with a set pattern of holes
That way, teams can come up with their own delivery mechanisms that they can attach to the plate.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of hanging it from a peg type thing because you would have much torque one foot out and the minibot would tip up and down and have to account for that as well as hitting the pole at an angle.