|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
using pneumatics on bumpers
can we use pneumatics to say lift our bumpers when we are in the pits and lower them when on the field?
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
Probably not, the judges would probably throw a fit. It would just be easier to make bumpers that have a quick attachment and release mechanism.
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
well have the bumper mounted on a frame, then have pneumatics raise the frame?
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
I'd suggest that while this is a cool application, that you probably don't want to have your pneumatics "pressured up" while you are in the pit, working on the robot, and especially not if they are the only thing holding a "hood" (or, in this case, bumpers and the attached frame) up over hands and heads working on the machine.
What I might suggest, instead, is gas shocks, similar to the tailgate of a minivan or hatchback, and then, before a competition you just lower the bumper/frame combo into place and hold it down with a good, solid latch or nut. Do keep in mind, however, that those bumpers will be getting bumped. The maximum pushing force of a robot is somewhere around 200 lbs. The impact force is greater still. Make sure the articulated part of your frame can withstand repeated impacts. But it should look cool, however you pull it off, Jason |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
I'm going to say that if you do this at all, you need to make absolutely, 100%, positively certain that the bumpers can not raise unless you tell them to by some mechanical means. If those bumpers raise on the field, you WILL get called for a violation of <S04>, which is a penalty and a possible yellow card. (<S04> is a rule that says that all robots shall comply with all robot rules.) The locking device, no matter the type used, would, of course, count towards your robot weight.
Also, if you really want to pursue this, you should probably ask the Q&A. Unofficial analysis: provided that you have it completely secured during the match, <R11> would not necessarily prohibit this. It's a risky move, though, and I'd guess that the GDC wouldn't be terribly happy about it. If they OK it, you would be well-advised to print out the Q&A and response and bring it with you to the event. Your inspector probably wouldn't pass it without that. A better method would be quick-release. I find that <R07-H> gives a guideline of being able to remove the bumpers in 10 minutes with 1 person. That's completely remove them from the robot for size and weight checks. Also, depending on design, I foresee some problems with <G30> when the bumpers get hit, and they will get hit. (Penalty, Yellow Card) <G13> will only protect for so long; if it's a design thing, the refs may request that you remove the feature. They can't require you to do so, unless they feel that it does violate a rule, but they can strongly recommend it. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
Well, the idea of using pneumatics to move bumpers is a good one, however the bumpers are not allowed to move at all during the match. I do not believe that they can move in the final twenty second, even.
|
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: using pneumatics on bumpers
I'm not sure why anyone would spend that much weight and design/fabrication effort to lift the bumpers; just use your hands.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Using Pneumatics with the CRIO? | nighterfighter | FRC Control System | 9 | 18-10-2009 22:59 |
| Pros and Cons of Using Pneumatics | Joe_Widen | Pneumatics | 22 | 30-06-2006 10:16 |
| Are you actually using bumpers? | Chriszuma | Technical Discussion | 28 | 16-02-2006 18:41 |
| Using previous years pneumatics? | ChuckDickerson | Pneumatics | 0 | 30-01-2005 18:22 |
| Are you using bumpers? | Jeff Waegelin | General Forum | 10 | 31-01-2002 12:58 |