View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-03-2010, 16:10
sdcantrell56's Avatar
sdcantrell56 sdcantrell56 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Sean
FRC #2415 (Wired Cats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,038
sdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond reputesdcantrell56 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 842's Ball Sucker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line View Post
I know you've given up on the rollers, but let me give you a hint anyway as to what some teams figured out.

It's a whole lot easier to "wedge" the ball into 2 rollers so that it's actually held rather than trying to roll it backwards. Rolling it backwards depends on a lot of variables, especially the relative friction between your rollers, the ball, and the carpet. As long as the ball isn't off the ground when it's "wedged", you're fine.

Take a look at robowranglers video to understand better what I mean. Notice when they mistakenly drive up the ramp the ball comes off the floor? They're not spinning the ball - they've got it wedged.
I hate to say it but I am under the impression that 148/217 is probably carrying the ball by a very small amount most of the time. In order to truly have the ball wedged like that the ball would need to come off the floor a small amount. I have also heard from some people who have prototyped these systems who echo the same findings. If they are not carrying then I'm truly impressed but otherwise teams should be very careful when creating these pinching systems.
__________________

Mentor 2415
Reply With Quote