View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-23-2014, 04:46 PM
KrazyCarl92's Avatar
KrazyCarl92 KrazyCarl92 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Carl Springli
FRC #5811 (The BONDS)(EWCP)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 519
KrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Limiting Drivetrain Motors

Personally, I could see it being cumbersome to write and enforce rules which regulate the exact mechanisms that particular motors on a robot power. Additionally, there are diminishing marginal returns to additional motors incorporate on a drive train. Adding the 3rd and 4th motors is a no-brainer. Adding the 5th and 6th motors requires proper design and a solid understanding of the drive train physics to reap significant benefits, and introduces an increased risk of popping the main breaker under certain conditions. Adding the 7th and 8th motors sees even less gains which may be inconsequential even with a proper understanding of the physics of drive trains and requires extreme caution with respect to popping the main breaker. As number of motors increases, a limit of improved functionality is approached. Where each team draws the line and what they consider "worth it" is up to them.

I would still argue that a kitbot drive train could be extremely competitive in this year's game. From scouting in Archimedes, I am aware of at least a handful of such robots.

IMO, the brutality of Aerial Assist had much more to do with game design than anything else. While the GDC may have intended the game to operate like a rube goldberg robotics demonstration like we saw in the Arizona Regional Finals or on the Weather Channel matches, it was quite clear from the get go that it would be a highly defensive game. When at most 2 robots from an alliance, and more often only 1, can interact with the game piece at a time do we expect the other partner(s) to just sit there or attempt to interfere with the opponents' offensive efforts?

Historically FIRST allowed additional CIMs beyond the previously typical 4 in 2010 (a climbing game, elevation of 18"; 5 CIMs allowed) and 2013 (another climbing game, elevation of up to 60"; 6 CIMs allowed). My understanding up through then was that the additional CIMs were included to encourage teams to pursue climbing without necessarily taking away from the typical drive train motor allotment or requiring cool PTO stuff. I would guess that the GDC likes to see teams pursuing a variety of game tasks, not ignoring them.

Then this year they also included 6 CIMs, which sort of broke any supposed support behind "climbing = more CIMs". I would've expected something along the lines of 4 CIMs + 2 MiniCIMs, still with teams using all 6 of those in the drive train as supported by the new VP and WCP gearboxes.
__________________
[2016-present] FRC 5811 - BONDS Robotics
[2010-2015] FRC 0020 - The Rocketeers