Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Any thoughts on Minibot standardization between teams to make sharing these bots easy between alliance partners? Some sort of standardized shape, volume, size, or mechanism to use to deploy the minibots that would work with a variety of deployment methods?
:confused: :)

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

good thinking!

No concrete ideas on my part yet, but certainly think this can be a valuable thread!

I also think a standard set of outputs from the robot can be helpful. Then one team team can design a self-contained mini-bot and deployer. The deployer can be attached to any robot as long as the robot provides the right signals, like a relay output, a digital output, and/or a PWM output. So team A can make a mini-bot and deployer (deployer easily attached to another robot's chasis) that uses a piston to deploy. Team B may want to use a digital output to deplay. Team C may want both a digital output and a piston. Team D may want to make the robot deploy with a PWM signal that goes to motor...

Still thinking out loud here, but lets keep the ideas flowing.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

A big incentive for standardizing Minibots is the Coopertition score, as well as the ease of use within your alliance sharing 'minibot duty'.

From the game manual:
5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.

A clarification of some terminology that I found confusing at first:
HOSTBOT – the electromechanical assembly used to carry the MINIBOT. (ROBOT – MINIBOT = HOSTBOT). If a TEAM plays a MATCH without a MINIBOT, then the HOSTBOT is the ROBOT.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Suggestion that may be practical: Design the interface such that the minibot is on a platform during the match. The platform then provides the launch point. If the minibot is designed to roll off the platform onto the base, or has that option, then it shouldn't matter too much which minibot is loaded on.

So, for the robot side, put a platform to either the base or the pole. If appropriate, make sure that it's notched for the pole. For the minibot side, have a base drive attachment.

Remember, all minibots are 12" cubes or smaller and 15 lbs or under.

Standardizing the Minibot
 

It would seem to be in line with the principles of graceful professional to develop a sudo standard model of a minibot. I would like to elaborate on the why but hopefully we all see this.

What these means is we would need to build a standard 'casing' so that teams could create a standard adapter. To allow for maximum minibot hostbot comparability.

Also a standard umbilical connector to allow for minibot hostbot communication. To allow a go switch / charging port.

Re: Standardizing the Minibot
 

I'd love to see something like this done. However, I think it will be up to FIRST or one of the big/respected teams to develop this.

If anyone has any suggestions or wants to propose something, draw it in CAD first and make it publically known what teams are using the standard.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This is a good idea. I think it would work better with there only being a specific size. If someone would create a 'universal' shape, or design, there will be too many ideas, and everyone will want there design to be the 'universal' design.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I was thinking (dangerous I know) that it would be possible for the minibots to either have a tower contact button or a "you're on your own" dead-man switch, and just be running a program all match that said, wait until X switch toggles to the other position. Minimal programming needed. Or have the NXT in a standard-ish area so a servo mounted on a "flexible" arm could hit the run button easily.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Yeah, I'd say as much as possible teams should strive to make their robots be able to launch any kind of minibot that can fit in the 12x12x12 inch dimensions.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I feel like having a platform like this is the simplest and most practical option. It's really easy to just have a flat surface on top of your robot.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Good idea.
I suggest that we need to decompose the problem and at least describe these requirements:
1. envelope/modular shape for the MB.
2. delivery platform & temporary fastening approach (so MB stays put until it is deployed). Maybe the platform even includes a box which is just larger than the size of item 1.
3. execution: e.g. platform extends, then a 'pusher' slides the MB forward onto the pole and retracts.
4. MB recognizes contact w pole and starts up on its own.

Or ...
Platform extends fwd, latches a very small piece of FTC legal metal to the pole (minimalist Minibot) and spring launches the MB up the pole.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This is a lot easier than it seems. Remember, the mini bot already uses a standard part system- FTC. All you need to do is drill FTC style holes all over a plate of metal. Then, before a match, determine where you want to connect mini and host bots on the plate, and put a bolt or shaft facing straight up at that point, with no nut holding the mini down. It is simply to prevent side-to-side movement. The mini is responsible for sensing that it is connected to the tower, at which point it must pull itself straight up, cleanly off the shaft/bolts. The host bot must extend the plate, with the mini bot, to the tower. No wiring or detach systems necessary.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

There was a similar idea to this last year to have a standard position for a suspension bar. As it was a great idea, it never worked because teams all went on their own plan.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Don't wait fror FIRST to develop anything like this. It is up to teams.

Also don't wait for FIRST Robotics Team xxxx (or xxx or xx) to develop it - you're just as good. Just do it, everyone will comment, we'll come to a consensus....done.

Waiting for 'someone else' to do it is the wrong idea.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This is a great reason to try again. What went wrong last year? What should we do different this year to get the standard defined clearly and adopted? Maybe a catchy name and logo would help (think about Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, HDMI, USB...)?

One idea already mentioned in this thread that I liked:
Compile a list of teams that commit to implementing the standard. When you get to the regional, you'll know what pits to visit for compatible minibots / hostbots.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Not at all. Why would teams design for a suspension bar when they could design for the very standard, has to be there hanging bar instead? Making a different "suspension bar" size was stupid.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I like the idea of the dead man switch. What about if the dead man switch kept a power switch open on the minibot, and when the dead man switch falls out, the circuit is closed, and the minibot powers on?

I agree. And at the same time, teams should construct their minibots such that they dont have any oddities that may hinder deployment by some systems such as curved faces; they may not work with certain implementations of a push deployment


I believe that minibots should be designed such that they are deployment-mechanism-agnostic, be it by pushing, swinging, or something else, because teams will end up having to make different deployment mechanisms based on how the rest of their robot is designed

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I propose the name of: MIND: MINibot Deployment


It is a ramp that is essentially drawbridge, that deploys at 30 inches (at the line) and emulates deploying at base level. Other than that, there must be 12*12*12 space inside the robot to store minibots.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I think there are 2 things to be standardized.
1) Minibot activation.
2) Minibot-pole transition device.

#2 is the simplest. The drawbridge or a platform device is simple: move ramp/robot to either the base or the pole and let it do its thing. Telling it when to go could be as simple as a bar across the end that when released turns the minibot on or lets it go.

#1 is harder. NXT device, pure mechanical, non-NXT... Ideally, the start trigger is contained on the minibot and is "running" when the minibot is loaded onto the hostbot.

The 30" height might be tricky--it depends on whether the minibot is allowed to be above the line. But substitute your favorite height in there as you need to.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Probably the best way to even be unintentionally compatible with most minibots would be to have a 12x12x12 (or a little more for comfort. Bots have feelings too) box with one side open that the minibot comes out of. On the closed sides of the box would be containment bars to keep the minibot from moving. The open side would have a gap in the bars that allows them to go around the pole. When launching the bot slides out of the box with the top open and climbs

An internal limit switch that detects the pole would probably be enough, and would work with almost any design (triggers nxt program to start, closes circuit to a motor, etc)

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Quick question, one to (perhaps) get people thinking:

Are you allowed to use an IR Receiver with a minibot?
(does this qualify? http://unlimited.syraweb.org/NewFTCkits.htm)

How easy is it to distribute a software module, an IR Led and some wire, and perhaps a button to teams at your regional? Will that be too much weight on their robot? How difficult will that be to install on a generic robot?


That's probably the best way I can think of to get it going. Let me know what you think.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Why are we specifying exactly how teams must deploy the robots? What about just standardizing that all minibots fit some X size requirement and some Y shape requirement and accept activation by some A,B, or C method and leave the rest up to individual team design? Lets not say 'All minibots must work with this drawbridge deployment mechanism' and rather leave it to everyone to create minibots that dont depend on a single deployment mechanism. Not all teams are going to use such a deployment method, so why limit the standard to just those teams?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

We're trying to pick a system that will work with a variety of minibots to get them to the pole here. If teams put a 12"+ cube on their robots, with some form of platform that gets a minibot to the pole, it seems that that has the largest potential to accept any random minibot. That leaves activation up to the minibot users, but standardizing activation methods would be nice too.

If you standardize minibot activation on the minibot, teams have to design for that. If you standardize a deployment that can accept any minibot, and have activation be automatic on the minibot, that's easier to do.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Perhaps a Bayonet - type of mounting where your robot has a delivery system,
eg a 1" square tube with a right angle end that actuates out, you can then provide a female connector to a partner team to mount on their mini-bot and make it compatible.

Bad thing is probably the need for re-inspection of the mini-bot in this case if it's done on-the-fly.

Ideally your mini-bot could be launched electrically using a Digital input or closed switch arrangement or have its own internal detection of pole contact.

Nothing says you have to make arrangements for the bot deployment at the competition, you could agree with some partner teams locally to create a regional standard.

Teams can build their bots to intentionally be traded off at the regional for the additional points any time it scores.

That's co-oper-tastic.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

What if all the standard was would be a 12x12x12, and each minibot had to include its own deployment mechanism?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This may seem stupid but how will they stop the program from running on the mini bot? I mean a simple limit switch type device would work to activate the programming for the mini bot. I had an idea of it being on the inside of the bot and once it hits the pole it just takes off. Then once we get a confirmation about if the robot can come back down just plan around that also.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

As long as the deployment mechanism was contained in the 12" cube, that'd be fine.

It's when the deployment mechanism goes outside, or when the robot's docking area isn't where the deployment mechanism needs to be to deploy right that there's a problem.

W/R/T stopping the minibot from running, I was thinking a switch at the pole as well. Activate it, and the minibot turns on. Biggest problem is the hostbots that expect the minibot to move out on its own onto the base--but another switch with a "standardish" mounting area set and a servo on the robot to activate it would probably work.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

My idea was to use a drawer type bearing to shove the mininbot out to the pole. For the minibot, I hat the thought of haveing three wheels, arranged in a triangle, with the "tip" of the triangle on the robot side of the minibot (away from the pole). As the bot was deployed, the one wheel would be pushed back and it would mechanicly grip the pole. Once all three wheels were on the pole, the unpowered wheel would somehow trigger a switch that would tigger the other two wheels to turn on. They would stay on for 10 seconds, stop for 10 seconds, then reverse at half speed for 15 seconds.

I'm sorry in advance if it makes no sense, but I'm just throwing an idea out there...

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I feel there has been some discussion on standardizing the minibots. Some people, donrotolo and darist, have expressed a desire for somebody to take the initiative in coming up with an open standard minibot. We want everyone to have freedom within the one foot cube, but we want to be able to expect some common way to mount the minibot to the host bot in a way it can be delivered on a pole.

Building on the comments by caffel I believe these could be the four criteria we need to keep in mind

1) Box/envelope/open top

2) Delivery platform (minibot doesn’t fall out of host bot)

3) Delivery (because currently it appears that our robot and minibot will be in contact with the pole the max hight of deployment is 18in)

4) Attach/ launch

We at 1712 would like to propose the acronym for the standardization, CLIMBS (Committee Leading the Initiative for MiniBot Standardization). Post fast we only have 10 seconds to the top

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I'm working on something right now, I'll post in a bit with what I get.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

How about standardizing that all compliant hostbots will be able to provide a quick-detach DIO clip and a dead man switch for minibots to use for activation, as well as a 12"x12"x12" bay for the minibot for the duration of the match. At endgame, the Hostbots would then place minibots on the tower and provide an activation signal via the DIO line, and then (If connected) disconnect the DIO line or dead-man switch. Of course, the minibots would not have to use these activation methods, and could choose to activate themselves by detecting the presence of the pole. A standard such as this allows many different implementations of minibots and delivery systems to be compatible.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

As far as deployment goes, I sketched up a rough diagram of a deployment tray that can be slid out to the pole. It has a 2"x6" rectangular notch cut into a 12" square plate to put the minibot into position around the pole, as well as three 1/2" holes drilled into the plate (the front two 2" in from the front and 1" away from the notch to each side, the third 5" from the front and 1" to the left side of the notch) that can be used to align the minibot for deployment.

Low res image attached, and the high res scan is in the attached zip if you're curious.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Here's my try at it. It's nothing too fancy, the manual (a pdf file in the zip) has the stipulations that should be taken when designed.

Attachment 9614

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

James, I love where you are going with this, mostly because it is very simple but yet very flexible.

I love the velcro idea great because it will be very easy to make almost any minibot instantly compatible with this deployment mechanism, even for teams that never saw this thread, they can do it in 5min at the competition.

Another good thing is that it requires no communication between hostbot and minibot.

It allows for the hostbot to implement any kind of deployment mechanism they want, as long as somehow that tray gets pushed up against the post. So, one team may dream up a slide-out mechanism, another may have an arm that rotates out, or an arm that rotates from a vertical position to the position indicated by the drawing... etc

Then of course, the one thing I worry about with this design is (ironically) the velcro. The requirement is that the hostbot places the minibot on the post and then pulls away. The minibot will have to be designed to hold on to that post pretty hard (somebody who didn't read about this standard may not do that). Or, on the other hand, if the velcro doesn't hold on hard enough, the minibot can come flying on a collision during the match.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

James and John pretty much nailed what I was thinking of with my platform suggestion. Then the only problem is getting it to either the base or the pole, but that should be team option.

W/R/T the DIO option, does the NXT even have that option? I was thinking use one of the two allowed light switches--use a servo on a light arm, positioned before the match, to flip the switch. Or you use the dead-man or pole-sensor; the dead-man indicates that the host says don't go yet (move servo or something, while the pole sensor says I have pole, climb faster.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

As I've been reading through the ideas posted, I realize that it may be important to consider an important question:

Who is most likely to benefit from such a standard?
I see two sets of teams that will benefit most from this:

- Rookie teams or teams that don't have a chance to build a minibot because they don't have time or easy access to an FTC team or FTC parts. Those teams can benefit by implementing a deployment mechanism that complies with the standard. Let's make the standard as simple and quick to implement as possible so teams that run out of time can still do it, even if it is during the practice day.

- Teams that design a cool minibot, or several minibots and want to share them with other teams in their alliance, or any other teams for coopertition points or just to be nice. When designing the minibot such teams may want to have maximum flexibility to make the shape of their minibot whatever they want, but will be able to use their minibots in other hostbots if their minibots are compatible with the standard.

The teams that make the really cool minibots can have their own custom (non -standard compliant) deployment mechanism in their hostbot, optimized for their minibot. But if they also design their minibot to be compatible, they will have the ability to have their minibot go in other hostbots.

With this in mind, maybe the standard should be just for the deployment mechanism not for the minibot (or really just the part of the deployment mechanism that holds the minibot). That is, let's define a standard minibot "holder thingy" (along the lines of James' suggestion above), and any team can design a compatible minibot.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I really like this idea though I am concerned as well about the Velcro not pulling away from the mnibot if the robot is too powerful.

What if we changed the design so the minibot had to pull away from the hostbot (by climbing the pole) instead of the hostbot pulling away form the minibot. In this way it is up to the minibot design to pull away from the deployment platform. The hostbot only retracts the deployment platform when the minibot has started climbing.

Also I would like to see a simple sample deployment mechanism built out of kit or easy to find parts for rookies teams to build or even to be built at a competition and added to a robot easily.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I could probably rig something up out of cardboard in a couple of hours as a prototype, but I'm kind of busy right now. Give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can do. If you can't find cheap cardboard quickly, you probably need to sleep for a few days. :rolleyes:

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Why release something at the base of the pole when you can release it at 18 inches? IMO this should be built into the universal one.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I think a simple scissor lift would suffice to lift the deployment platform up the the needed height (the 12in of the base or even more to the deployment line), and then drawer slides à la the kickoff video to roll it out to the tower would be something any team could do quickly and easily. The only hard part is dealing with minibots that need an external trigger to activate, instead of sensing the pole for themselves.

I also love the idea of projectile minibots, if GDC allows them. If they are allowed, maybe people would want to build modular launchers that fit onto the universal platform, and can be swapped and traded for other minibots.

This could get really cool. I forsee black market stands outside competitions peddling minibots, each touting their design.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Now somebody. somewhere among the 10+ threads about mini-bots must have asked this, and I might of missed it, but here goes nothing...

Under <R92>, when it says Tetrix Components, are NXT Sensors of any kind considered to be a Tetrix Component? I've been disputing this since I read the rules regarding the permitted materials. Until the GDC Q&A is open, I figured I might as well ask the community.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

1) Who said anything about how high the platform would go?
2) 18" for the top of the minibot or for the platform? It might make a big difference...

As for who is going to benefit from a standard, it could be rookies who just need a little bit of a push, it could be teams with lots of spares, or it could be teams with a couple pounds and no minibot who slap one on and borrow a minibot and win a match or two. If there's an approximate standard, and teams build minibots for that approximate standard, then it's a lot easier to say, "Oh, let's add standard X to the robot and watch it work" than to say, "let's build a minibot deployer so that we can try and borrow someone's until ours works".

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

on the thought track of the Tetrix stuff, there has to be some sort of light sensor available to use on the minibots, so if you made something that could easily be put onto other robots, be contained in its own 1 foot cube, and be able to understand when the base of the poles are blinking and when they go to the solid color. couldn't it launch itself and find the pole provided your teammate drove relatively close to the base?

its kind of like making a FLL robot inside of a FRC bot... :]

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

on the 18 inches, here are the related rules that I could find:

<G20> ROBOTS/HOSTBOTS may not contact their own TOWERS above the DEPLOYMENT LINE. Violation: PENALTY for contact. TOWER is disabled if MINIBOT is DEPLOYED above the DEPLOYMENT LINE.

<G22> HOSTBOTS may not contact their ALLIANCE’S MINIBOT once it has climbed above the DEPLOYMENT LINE. Violation: TOWER is disabled

hmm... I need clarification on "above the deployment line".

is it any part of the minibot is above the deployment line, or
the entire minibot is above the deployment line?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Assume "any part" and be pleasantly surprised when it's "all" if that is the ruling.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I have read through all of the threads on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the best solution would be to make a minibot that is 12*12*12 that is self activated once it is deployed on to the pole. It would make it so that the deployment mechanism only has to push, swing, twist or whatever other way needed to get the the minibot to the pole.

The thought I had for activation was to use a limit switch in the normally open position to detect attachment to the pole. Once the minibot is on the pole it just takes off up the pole.

As for the deployment mechanism, I was thinking of using a notched drawer similar to the earlier sketch with short walls all of the way around it. When the deployment mechanism is retracted inside the hostbot, it would be covered by a top. That would prevent the minibot from being able to come out during game play. If all of the deployment mechanisms are designed to hold a minibot that is the maximum allowed dimensions, and every minibot is built to that standard, then sharing of them is easy.

On a scoring thought, can you make it so that all of the members on an alliance exchange minibots so everyone on the alliance gets coopertition bonuses?

Edit: Two members of an alliance can deploy a minibot, they exchange minibots with each other. Can they both get the coopertition bonus?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

My advice is to design the minibot to NOT use the NXT brick. The NXT brick isn't rated for shock loads like a typical FRC bot will experience. If you are the team creating the bots for others to use, then those will be YOUR NXT bricks on the field, significantly increasing the likelyhood that you'll have to spend a couple hundred extra dollars replacing them.

It's quite possible to do without a NXT. We are allowed 2 light switches ya know...

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

This is what I was think for the minibot standardized interface.

I was thinking maybe something like equipping the minibot with a simple tab toward the top of the minibot that it could rest on.


The tab is really simple just a 1x1 inch tab with a clearance hole for a 1/4 post that is centered on the cross bar. The bottom side of the tab is 2" from the top of the minibot envelope.

The example minibot(red) is 12x12x11 so that the tab extends to fill out the 12x12x12 box.

I drew this example in the simplest form so that people would have the greatest chance to innovate in their minibots and deployment mechanisms.

The minibot is not really allowed to interact with the hostbot much except for physical attachment so I feel that trying to tether or connect the minibot to the host bot would not be a good idea. My philosophy is make the minibot interface as independent as possible. Teams that want to use an onboard NXT controller for their minibot will need to have some sort of a limit switch that will switch the minibot on for climbing.

I would love to hear anyone else's ideas on this.

Thanks everybody and have a wonderful build season!

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I like the way this is stated.
The rules seem to reward swapping minibots, in fact if you look at it, the only reason to use your own is if you think the ones that are offered won't perform.
Also, pls look at Captain Crunch above. Giving something a catchy name may help spread that word.

There are two audiences here: robot builders and MB builders. The highest value of a 'design standard' is to bridge the needs of both and encourage engineering cooperation.
If the MB builders propose some standards, them the robot builders have the opportunity to debate & respond.

(or for the cynical, just go back to the scoring arguments in sentence #2)

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

But just how big of a reward is it?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

One coopertition point if it makes it to the top. Coopertition points are the third tier of scoring teams. If two teams have the same W-L record and the same ranking points, coopertition scores are what decides it. Also, there is a separate reward for the coopertition points. Not a whole lot, but then you can also get the points for the game.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Actually, according to the current set of rules, Coopertition points are not factored into ranking.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

On the platform idea, I rigged up a quick cardboard platform and did a strength test. Two college textbooks (probably about 15 lbs), supported between two chairs, on a cardboard platform that I made ready in about 20 minutes including a little extra rigidity.

It's simple, properly supported it can easily handle a minibot, and then all the team has to do is get the minibot to the post and have the minibot start.

Could I make it better? Sure. I can if requested, by adding sides and maybe a top.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Assuming that all the MBs have their own activation mechanism independent of the deployment mechanism and host bot the only thing that needs to be standard is the delivery system. Going along with what maclaren posted and bakejame i am in favor of making some sort of notched system that extends to the pole and the MB can just slide right out of the top.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Oops, Sorry. Should have doublechecked the rules.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

i see it like this... Teams should be responsible for the "depolyment" of the mini bot. They need to make a way to get the mini bot from their robot to the pole. The part where coopertition can ocme in is the wway the mini bot is attached to this deployment method. I belive the best thing is what has been suggested before, a simple tab with a whole that when the mini bot ciimbs the tower it slides off a screw or bolt through that hole. This way we are not limiting mini bots to be something that must seek the pole, and we are also not limiting robots to having to have a flat surface on top or whatever is agreed upon on their robot. Many designs may have other spaces where a mini bot deployment system will be better used than on top of a robot, and i think teams should create a way to launch the minibot themmselves, because a universal launch system will be very hard. That deployment system should simply be made such that it would work with the universal minibot i.e. aone with a tab at the top with a hole through it...

doing this will prevent us form limiting the minibot design, or requiring that it must seek the pole from the top of the platform. Also this will allow teams to use their space in different manners but still launch another teams minibot.

just my 2 cents...

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Maybe I am reiterating a part (or parts) of other posts already here, but if teams were to make a standardized deployment system, would it make more sense to "standardize" a method of connections (ie 1 per axis of the 12 inch cube) and their orientation? Or The deployment method itself?

If the connection locations and methods were to be standardized, I can picture a bunch of different designs (benefiting Veteran teams) with a universal hook up system that could benefit all teams by being able to "lock and load" many bots (ie especially rookies who haven't built a MiniBot could just build in the universal compartment, and be ready).

I don't know of a connection method off the top of my head, but I am sure there are methods that could work well for something like this.

Also, like darist was saying, a name for this would be cool, and I thought of BUMP. For Basic Universal MiniBot Package.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Standardize how the minibot is transported around the field aboard the hostbot; deployment of that transportation method, whether a platform or a peg, to get the minibot to the pole is up to the team. That's the easiest way to do it, as different robot designs will lend themselves to different deployment methods.

I think the two easiest to implement so far are the platform (easily placed on any robot and should work with most or all minibots; maybe not so easy to move, but if placed at the base height could easily be equipped with a pusher to make sure the minibot gets to the pole) and the peg/loop system (not quite so easy to detach/launch the minibot, but very secure in terms of keeping the minibot aboard).

Think I might take a few minutes in the next couple of days to monkey around with the prototype I posted earlier to make it more secure/a little stronger. I might try combining the two good designs, too.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Done. 4 engineering textbooks with only minor bending. On cardboard.

Technical details: double layer of cardboard on the bottom, held together with duct tape and packing tape. The wire that's visible is meant to represent a robot-based pin release. I made sure that all the books were off the support chairs for the test--I'd estimate about 20-30lbs.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I really like this idea, and as a close-to-rookie team member myself, I’d love to be able to use this standard to help the alliance.

For stability during the match, I prefer maclaren’s simple tab-and-pin rather than a potentially unstable tray. However I can imagine that slowing or even stopping the minibot if the deployment isn’t aligned properly. I propose the minibot have a C-channel mounted on the side, with the opening facing downward. Hostbots can then have a slot that the outermost side of the C-channel slides into, and it shouldn’t matter where it stores them during play or how it deploys them. The compromise with this is that not all minibots could be modified at the competition to be compatible.

For activating the minibot, a pole sensor seems by far the easiest choice in terms of compatibility. It also limits the hostbot’s duties to simply positioning the minibot.

I hope my idea is easy enough to follow, but if not, the graphic attached shows the hostbot in black and the minibot in blue.

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.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

When researching the limitations as to how many motors we can use, I was not sure if the minibot's motor's were included in the four motor limit for which they list under the smaller motors (RS-775, RS-550, RS-540, RS-395).

Furthermore, the #739083 motors are not on the kit list and we are unsure where to find them (in case we need to order more). Where can we purchase these motors?

Are these motors included in the Robot motor limitations or simply limitation for the minibot?

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

The four-motor limit only applies to the BaneBots motors. FTC motors are not BaneBots. <R45-D>.

The FTC motors are available through Pitsco...or, if you have not used your FIRST Choice option, use that to get an FTC Mini Kit, which has both motors and the FTC battery pack. You pay shipping, but not the cost of the item. See the Kit of Parts page. You only have the weekend, though, so you might want to hurry if you haven't gone for that yet.

The FTC motors are only for the Minibot. Use of FTC motors on the Hostbot is grounds for the inspectors not passing you until they are removed. <R46-A>.

The Minibot and Hostbot go through separate inspections. Minibots have one allowed parts list; Hostbots have another. Game 4.3.15 Blue Box.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

I don't think its feasible for the MINIBOT designer to provide any part except for the MINIBOT itself. Any thing that doesn't go up the pole is considered part of the HOSTBOT, and is subject to the HOSTBOT inspection rules -- so any new MINIBOT you accept that comes with its own deployment hardware is a HOSTBOT re-inspection -- and affects BOM list and all that.

The configurable pegs and such are just optional attachments for your HOSTBOT. As long as you weigh all optional parts and stay under 120, there is no re-inspection.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Can anyone actually post a minibot. That way we can get going on the standard minibot design, instead of talking about it. Not just the minibot, but also the deployment method. If we actually post designs, we can start actually making progress on the idea.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Hey Steven. Some of us from your old team have been working on a standardization design for the Minibot deployment system. We hope people going to the San Diego and Las Vegas Regionals, and anywhere else, will strongly consider using this design. Check it out here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=89219.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Hey guys, we've been working on this standardization system, so... Here it is: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=89219. We hope people use it so it will be easy to trade, loan, and do anything else with the Minibots.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Hey Steven! The team back home worked on this for quite a bit and we think we've got a good thing going. Check it out and let us know of any improvement ideas anyone may have. We hope to have as many teams as possible use this standardized deployment system so trading, loaning, and anything else to do with the Minibots will be as easy as pi. -Team 585

Minibot Deplyoment Standardization: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=89219

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Well, if you want a design, our minibot is pretty simple to describe, so I'll post it. Imagine a U bend of metal, with a motor attached to the largest FTC wheel on either side of the U. The motor is only attached with 1 bolt, so it can swing. The wheels are being pulled towards the center by surgical tubing. To keep the wheels from blocking the pole, we looped string around the back of the motors and pulled the motors towards the back the center of the U. The other end of the loop of string is wrapped around a pin in the center of the U, that when the U makes contact with the pole, is pushed back, letting the wheels swing in and engage with the pole. Oh and everything I haven't mentioned (motor controller, NXT, or light switches and wiring) is mounted in the back.

We haven't quite figured out how to deploy it yet, cause we've been really concentrating on the minibot itself. However, since the minibot just needs to be pointed and shot forward at the pole, it shouldn't be too much effort to figure it out (a pneumatic or a gas spring attached to a servo could do it). So far, our best climb time is about 4.5 seconds for the 7 1/2 feet you have to climb.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

Check out the link I posted above for our deployment system. It's pretty easy to work into any robot and use.

Re: Minibot Standardization (FRC 2011: Logomotion)
 

what kind of sansor did you use?