View Single Post
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 19:04
fargus111111111's Avatar
fargus111111111 fargus111111111 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Tim W
FRC #0343 (Metal in Motion)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 101
fargus111111111 is on a distinguished road
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

Having been a major low-bar-capable supporter from the beginning I'm very glad we decided to go low.

One thing, which I was unsure of at first, but wouldn't do without now as a driver, is our spring loaded climber arm, it was light, and it stuck up high so I NEVER lost sight of our robot, but when going under the low bar there was nothing to think about bringing down. It flopped down and back up all by it self.

This is our lightest robot ever, I think, and that is largely due to the limited space we had to put stuff, it was really nice to see the scale say 100.4 at inspection instead of 119.8 like last year. I gave us assurance that if we needed to add something it was not a problem as far as weight was concerned.

Honestly if we had chosen to not do the low bar we would have basically built our 2012 bot with pneumatic wheels or tracks and a larger ball path. Idk, but I feel like that may have removed some of the learning we get every year from the challenge.

I loved having tracks this year PID+low CG made them handle like a dream and we never got stuck on a defense. A taller bot may not have been as stable on the tracks. (but honestly it is hard to tip a 14 lbs battery that is 1.5 in off the floor in the center of the bot)

As already mentioned the ability to fit it in the back of a hatchback/SUV is very convenient for demonstrations.
__________________
I didn't break it... this time.
Reply With Quote