Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN
My Arm Design Methodology:
1. What orientation is the scoring object in when I pick it up?
2. What orientation is the optimum orientation of the object for scoring?
3. What elevation changes do I need to make to the object?
4. What is the simplest mechanism I can use to accomplish the above orientation and elevation changes?
5. How do the "initial configuration" and Maximum dimension requirements effect what I would normally choose as ideal?
|
I added one to John's list that has often required the "need" for an additional joint even if the joint was temporary. In my opinion, many of the great arms in FRC have required a "stowage" joint in order to meet the first 4 objectives and still fit in the starting configuration box. The "stowage" joint would sometimes be a non-articulating joint that would have a release and lock position (Team 67-2008). While great designs can come from out of the box thinking, the rules often require that you at least start in the box and grow from there.
I put "need" in quotes because of the 2011 1503 machine that seemed to defy common logic on what was needed to be excellent. I would put team 25's "2012 bridge manipulator" in the same category.