Re: Team Update #1
 

Please see my post above about physics. The fundamental issue here is that we're given exactly one method of converting stored electrical energy into mechanical energy. This method limits you to, at most, 16.8W of mechanical power. This gives you a hard and definite limit of just how fast you can lift X lbs to Y inches. If the GDC allows minibots to expand or detach parts, then there's discussion to be had on whether to fire up something light, or drag the entire minibot up the pole.

It looks pretty certain that the GDC ISN'T going to allow expanding minbots or detachable parts, so your only option is to haul the entire minibot up the pole. So you know right away the you're hauling 2 motors and a battery up the pole, and you want to absolutely minimize any wasted energy. You want every last erg you can get to go into lifting the bot. It really, really focuses your design.

What about the bot that spins around the pole as it goes up? Nope, all that rotational kinetic energy is a waste. Big honkin' wheels? Nope, more wasted rotational energy. Lots and lots of gears? And waste all that energy in friction in the bushings? Umm... maybe a flag to wave around at the top? Nope, don't have the grams to spare. These constraints pin you down to the absolute bare minimum necessary to get the job done. The most successful minibots will have the minimum necessary wiring, maybe one gear step up (yes, up), a battery, and the lightest frame possible. The only real question open to you is how you latch the minibot onto the pole as quickly and high as possible, within these other constraints.

So it's not the fun, crazy, creative kind of engineering we get to do on the rest of the robot. It's the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering that's rather less popular, but rather more common.

Re: Team Update #1
 

... is the kind that really matters.

It's the way we get to things that really work, really well, for a really long time. (Must think of some examples...)

Ah, here's one: Dave's other car.

Re: Team Update #1
 

As a teacher of conceptual, standard and AP Physics, I understand the principles behind most mechanical processes. I stand by my statement that you are already limiting yourself in your approach.

have anyone thought about this?:
Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?

Re: Team Update #1
 

Kevin,

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe that in past seasons there have been up to several seconds of variation in match length during FRC Regional matches.

Talk to a few folks (some FTAs maybe?) who can confirm or deny my fuzzy suspicion before putting too much faith in being able to legally deploy the mini-bots exactly 110 seconds after your robot reports (to itself) the match has been started.

Blake

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'm very excited about the 84'!! however i'm not as joyful bout the minibot ideas... this is going to hinder design work just a bit... should still be interesting thou!
:cool:

Re: Team Update #1
 

(emphasis mine) I'm not so sure that <R92> states that I cannot fabricate my own wheels from aluminum sheet and tube (for example). Just sayin'It may have helped that the entire contraption was built by the lowest bidder... :ahh: Exactly. So which team will be able to wring the most from their pinewood derby car minibot? The team that understands the design constraints best. Maybe it IS a competition to see who sucks least, but I for one welcome the opportunity to blow your doors off.:p

Bring it on.


.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Good luck with that Sir! Team 2389 is in full swing and is working nonstop to make this year the absolute Best!;)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Absolutely, this is not an engineering challenge.

I can easily think of several ways to get a bare bones bot off the pole safely in less than 30 seconds (and they don't involve a stick chainsaw as Dean demonstrated). After all, we're planning a sub-one second deployment. Why should it take up to a minute to retrieve the little critter?

Re: Team Update #1
 

I find this new contraint quite enjoyable. Then again, I'm not on a team.

There has always been talk from year to year about "standardizing" certain parts of the robot across teams to allow them to be able to be switched out at competitions. I think FIRST just laid a golden egg right in your lap to do something like this and make it actually happen (in fact, they are encouraging it).

Forget about the "lack of innovation" that has come from this rule, and think about how fun it'll be brainstorming with other teams in the pit to get their minibot to work with your hostbot.

Just my two cents.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I must agree! :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

...with?

Re: Team Update #1
 

I second this request. Hopefully this gets people to stop complaining and start working on their teams bots.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I was thinking the same thing. 24 hour rest. Reopening tomorrow evening.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Even with the massive constraints placed on the minibot design, it will still be difficult to create a final product that attaches to the pole, and has enough traction to adequately grip the pole. It's still going to be exciting to see which teams come up with novel ways to increase traction, novel methods of attachment, and creative ways to lighten the whole system.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Doesn't the blue box under section 4.13.15 technically allow an FTC team who is not registered for the competition to win the coopertition award?