Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
A bigger factor for us is we don't like giving up symmetry on our parts. If we can maintain it, it makes fab and assembly easier/less confusing.
It's a really trivial difference though, between implementations.
|
Didn't think about the symmetry of the parts. That is a good point, especially at the manufacturing stage.
And yes, it really is a trivial difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
I've redesigned my chassis so that there will be 7/8" ground clearance.
|
This is a good ground clearance. As mentioned earlier, the sub-floors and methods of placing field elements can cause issues at .5". Then there is always random debris from robots that fall off. Yes, you will never be able to completely design for this, but the design should be capable of fasteners, small plates, chain, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK
Another thing about the inconsistent turning axis is that it can be used to your advantage with the right drivers and driving practice. Watch the 2011 Einstein finals(both matches) and watch 254 very closely. You will see that they do this. One example of the right way to use the inconsistent turning axis is when they come from picking up a tube in the feeder station. They transverse the whole field backwards and then right before they get to the racks, they brake, shifting their turning axis and causing them to use the turning axis closer to the racks, allowing them to turn and immediately score instead of having to turn and then drive closer to the racks.
|
Hmmm. So you can control the teeter and use it your advantage. This is something I didn't think could be done. Poofs always teach me something new (in this case with the help of Michael).