Quote:
Originally Posted by yash101
That seems like a good battery mount. However, as of what I understand, it is made of Aluminum, so I think it may be a short hazard!
|
It is aluminum, but it isn't really a shorting hazard. The lip of the cradle only comes about half-way up the edge of the battery, so it is well clear of the terminals. As long as you follow typical insulation practices and avoid striking the battery with large conductive objects, you should be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yash101
I prefer upright battery mounts because these batteries have a grip that helps you replace them. The battery holder depends on your robot's size/design/CoG. Place it to center your CoG. Also, make it so that replacing the battery is easy. If you can replace the battery within thirty seconds, you have done well! Also, your robot's shape really matters. We didn't really worry about where we placed the battery because we had a very stable robot already. If the robot was like our 2012 robot for rebound rumble, that easily fell over, the battery must have been placed in the bottom center.
|
Agreed. I like the flat mount where possible since it helps lower the CoG just a bit, but I agree that the mount of choice depends more on the shape of your robot and battery swap access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yash101
This is off topic, but not worth making a thread for:
Many robots won't reach the weight restriction. Are we allowed to place dense materials, like a block of lead or steel, etc. in places on the robot to reduce the CoG?
|
I've seen teams do this. As long as there isn't a rule that prohibits it, it would be legal. You'll have to account for the additional material on your bill of materials of course.
Cheers,
- Dean