Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Steele
Tristan this is an interesting comment... why did you use the fan?
My guess is that it was used to increase the "apparent weight" of the robot which would increase the normal force on the wheels which would increase the friction of the wheels with the surface. Therefore this would increase traction..
hence a traction device.
That being said.. .the battery and every other part on the robot are also traction devices by this definition ..
interesting
|
The fan wasn't mine. Other teams wanted to increase their traction on the slick fibreglass surface. The Q&A ruled against it.
But like you said, if that was a traction device, why wasn't everything with weight or downward momentum also a traction device? (They contribute to the normal force, which determines the traction.) And if the weight limit was considered "accounted for", why couldn't underweight robots use a fan to bring themselves to an equivalent normal force? Note that there was no theoretical limit on momentum (though admittedly there were practical ones).
And from an enforcement point of view, how is a referee supposed to know when a ducted, vectoring fan is exerting a downward force, and when it's just thrusting horizontally or off? Failing that, under what authority would FIRST have asked inspectors to disapprove of that mechanism? It was completely unworkable.
Let's hope it's never an issue again....