Thread: # of limbo machines?
View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 23:05
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: # of limbo machines?
Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 2/9/2000 7:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Daniel on 2/9/2000 8:37 AM MST:



: I dunno...they way people are talking, I'm guessing the mere act of falling over would create a decided disadvantage, timewise. It's a cool concept, but time is of the essence, so it seems.


I was thinking that the drive wheels would be touching the ground from the start and that right off the whistle the drivers would put the motors at full throttle which would cause the machine to tip over while accelerating. There might be a problem with hitting the edge of the field, but I doubt it. I really wanna see this happen though.
BTW, has anyone changed the orientation of their robot in previous years so that their footprint wasn't 30in. x 36in.? I don't think there has been a great motive to do so till now.
:-Dan


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.