|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
That arm on the front stays inside the maximum robot volume, right? It looks like you're going with the tall dimension set, and it also looks like lowering that arm is against the rules.
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
That looks like the short dimension set to me.
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Agreed
Teams need to make sure they read all rules pertaining to robot size carefully. I would hate to see a robot this well designed get to a competition and then not pass inspection. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
I'm equally worried about teams building drive base/bumper assemblies to the maximum allowed dimension, and then regretting this decision when they realize all the cool things they could have achieved with a smaller base that enabled over-the-bumper dropdowns. In past years, iterating in new systems was just a matter of finding the space and weight, this year there are going to be a lot of teams boxed out of improving their robots and adding features like Spectrum has because they assumed bigger=better early in the process.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
3847's robot is a good example of leaving a conservative amount of space (just an inch or three) for OTB stuff, but I bet others left way more than they should have. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
I really like the design of this robot. I wish we'd have considered a gear pickup on the same side as the fuel intake because I think fuel on the floor will make it difficult to reach gears in some cases. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
I mean, if you grow your hopper out over the top of your intake, sure. But if you grow your hopper out in that direction, isn't that just going to stick out the same distance as your over-the-bumper intake? Which then isn't sticking out farther than your robot's frame anymore? Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose then?
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
Considering even a full length robot can actuate their front roller so that it occupies the space between the frame and the edge of the bumper, this advantage starts to seem limited to making the collector wider. Again, this is a sizeable advantage, but at the same time, the field will have hundreds of balls on it, and I'm not sure the complexity of this solution is justified for this benefit. It's not zero benefit, and it's certainly worth exploring for many teams, I just wonder if the tradeoff in complexity and / or ball storage will end up being clearly worth it or not. This isn't the path my team took and it certainly simplified a lot of the robot once we decided not to do this, plus we still have the option to switch to a drop-down "in-the-bumper" intake if we really need that little bit of roller to grab balls against walls. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
I'm sure you guys have done your research and totally know what you're doing here, and I don't mean to doubt that. Just trying to share a data point. |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Spectrum 3847 - 2017 CAD Model: Gamma Ray
Quote:
You don't think it's more likely that you have an inaccurate perception of the robot's dimensions? It's not against the rules to lower the arm as long as the robot still fits within the volume with the arm lowered (i.e. their chassis is shorter to compensate). This is clearly the case here. If the arm doesn't go past the bumpers then it's legal for it to be lowered even at max dimensions. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|