23-01-2013, 21:18
|
 |
Alumni turned Mentor
AKA: Branden Gunn
 FRC #4761 Team Role: Mentor
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Reading, MA
Posts: 864
|
|
|
Re: Bumper Design
Quote:
Originally Posted by hf3132
Something that also works rather well is to have connected bumper sections connected via a hinge.
For example, on our 2012 off season robot, we had a cutout in the front of the C-Frame, to pick up the balls. our bumpers were in two parts, each covering one long side, one short bit at the front of the robot and half of the back.
The connections between them were hinged. That enabled us to bend the outer two pieces of the bumper out a bit more, making it far easier (and less frustrating  ) to put on. |
Hinges can be tricky, as far as inspection goes. in 2008, we used hinges to hold our smallest pieces on (WAY less than 8", back then it was legal), and it took some convincing that they were mounting hardware. It would have hurt to redesign the bumper mount in the pits.
I'd like to get inspector opinions on hinged bumpers. (To be absolutely clear, not Articulating bumpers, just bumpers connected together at the hinge to make them easier to fold around the robot.)
__________________
Student FRC23 (1996-1999), Mentor FRC246 (2000), Mentor FRC1318 (2007-2009), Mentor FRC93 (2011), Mentor FRC2151 (2012), Mentor FRC23 (2013), Mentor FRC4761 (2014-2017)
1998 - National Chairman's Award and Woodie Flowers Award (FRC23, Mike Bastoni  ) | 2007 - PNW SF (488, 1595) | 2008 - Oregon RCA - Seattle #2 Seed, SF (488, 1696) | 2009 - Oregon #1 Seed, Winners (1983, 2635) - Seattle SF (945, 2865) - Galileo #2 Seed, SF (973, 25) | 2012 Midwest F (111, 71) | 2014 RIDE Winners (78, 125), Inspector - NEU #24, QF (3479, 3958) - NECMP #35 | 2015 Reading #11, SF (1058, 190), Inspector - RIDE #17, QF(4055, 5494), Inspector - NECMP #57 | 2016 Reading #4, SF (133, 4474), DCA, Inspector - Ride #22, SF (1735, 2067), Creativity, Inspector - NECMP #48, RCA - Archimedes
|