Poll: Wide or Narrow Chassis?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

It is almost surely not going to happen

Bah. Line them up across the edge of the bridge, and I'll push them up sideways with my robot.

[3v3rnoob]

Of course! And why CAN'T all three robots go on the long way? Part of the two on the ends can hang off and still balance right? Just don't push too much or my robot on the end will bet smashed UP![/sarcasm]

But in all seriousness, it's not very likely that all three robots will fit on the ramp if they all want to get on long-ways. Then again, that's what mecanum wheels are for, right?

[soxfan269]

Originally Posted by 3v3rnoob

Of course! And why CAN'T all three robots go on the long way? Part of the two on the ends can hang off and still balance right? Just don't push too much or my robot on the end will bet smashed UP![/sarcasm]

But in all seriousness, it's not very likely that all three robots will fit on the ramp if they all want to get on long-ways. Then again, that's what mecanum wheels are for, right?

Our team came to the conclusion that if you ever see three on a ramp that will be the only time you see it. I doubt from calculations we've made that you will ever see 3 robots on at once. I don't think any team will volunteer their robot to be the one hanging off the edge, there's just too much risk involved. To me a wide drive train seems the most logical. After playing many, many matches on Catalyst I can say that there is never a shortage of balls on the ground. Because of that I believe that there is an advantage to having a wider ball collecting zone.
As far as the bump goes, I don't see any major advantage that going over the bump would give you. I can't see a robot crossing the mid field more than twice, and probably more often only once. The only reason to go onto your opponents side would be to guard or to pass balls. If you're doing that then you're probably going to stay at that end most of the game. The only reason you might cross again would be for end game.

I can't see stability being an issue. If all you're doing is going over 1-2 times a game then you can cross the bridge without it being a hindrance to you. On a narrow robot design you have such little space to line up the ball to the collector that it might hurt you more in the long run, than going over the bridge twice would. Catalyst has been very helpful in identifying problems that I hadn't even thought about. I highly suggest anyone trying to decide between a narrow or wide chasis to try out any chasis available on Catalyst. Last time I checked it will only let you use a narrow chasis, but atleast then you may be able to see the difficulty that the narrow collector can cause.

My team has Mecanums on our bot this year, so it's kind of irrelevant which end goes first. However, we have a ball intake on one narrow end, so I guess that's the front.

[Jared Russell]

To quote one FIRST Senior Mentor:

"If the robot don't fit, you must acquit" (or in this case, not pick that team to be a part of your eliminations alliance)

[Hawiian Cadder]

I think we will assuredly see a triple robot balance. what about robots driving onto other robots, I could see a robot designed entirely to hold another robot, and to allow it to climb on with a ramp working very well. If the first robot had a 14 inch wide ball manipulator up front, with a 14 inch extension there is even enough room for a second robot on top while still having a working ball scoring system. A low level of stall against some support on the first robot would enable it to stay on fairly well, and score 2 robots in the footprint (slightly more really) of one.

[karomata]

My team, 1511, is heading toward a narrow drive, but I am still in support of a wide drive because it can collect balls faster and can arrange itself on the bridge easier and taking less time.

I see no need to pick up balls faster, since you can only hold 3 balls at a time. A narrow chassis will be a lot more sturdier, and will be better to go over the bumps/bridges in the center. A wide chassis can get more balls at a time, however like I said with only 3 balls maximum, picking them up fast won't be very useful.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

I see no need to pick up balls faster, since you can only hold 3 balls at a time.

The speed with which you can collect balls kind of depends on the ease with which you can collect balls. Since there won't be a lot of balls on the field if the Inbounders are playing smart, then you probably want to make ball collection as easy as possible. A narrow robot leaves a very small area to collect balls, if you are using just an opening between the bumpers. Consider that you'll be driving the robot from a long distance away, so it will be hard to see just what you're doing, and getting an 8" ball into a 12" wide opening under those conditions is going to be quite a challenge. An alternative is to make a wide ball collector that hinges out/down, but this presents some different problems.

I like how the trade-offs in this game are so well balanced, it's difficult to decide which is the best way to go. Look at the poll results so far...

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Sconrad

Are you proposing that Bots 1 and 3 have their lighter side hanging off of the side of the ramp?

Yes, that is correct

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Bah. Line them up across the edge of the bridge, and I'll push them up sideways with my robot.

We are seriously considering just that.

Originally Posted by soxfan269

Our team came to the conclusion that if you ever see three on a ramp that will be the only time you see it.

I then conclude your team is not planning on making it to Einstein this year.

Originally Posted by karomata

in support of a wide drive because it can collect balls faster

Wide doesn't mean fast. Or easy. Do not limit yourself to a gap in your frame for a ball collection device. You can have an arm that swings down, using the same principle used to collect tennis balls quickly, for example. (like this shows starting at 0:19)

Originally Posted by viperred396

we are somewhat worried about tipping when attempting the bump

Focus very intensely on a low center of gravity. Our 'Breakaway' robot was called Weeble - can you guess why?

Originally Posted by squirrel

The speed with which you can collect balls kind of depends on the ease with which you can collect balls.

Yes, exactly. And teams should realize that most balls will be against a wall, so if your BAD* cannot pick up from against a wall, it will not be very useful. You need a good BAD.

(*BAD = Ball Acquisition Device)

[J93Wagner]

Honestly, I have no idea what orientation to call our drive.

The reason is because we're doing something... weird, to say the least. We have decided that we will be using Mecanum drive as the base, with the BAD* situated on the long side. However, assuming that is the front, our wheels will NOT be pointing in that direction. Rather, they will be oriented the long ways, allowing us to have the stability of the long orientation and the ball carrying capacity of the narrow orientation. Best of both worlds really.

Except maybe for having to deal with drifting. But that's a software problem.

*Ball Acquistion Device as dubbed by DonRotolo.

[Chexposito]

i would go narrow... you might have problems getting over the middle with a wide front, unless you have crab/swerve, or some other types of multi-directional drive trains. unless of course you have an low cg, etc. plus you're not really doing mass collection of game pieces

[minidave910]

I can tell you that my team is leaning towards wide right now and the main point is this: ease of picking up balls. I know you are all arguing that with so few balls on the field we won't need to be able to pick up fast but I believe that fast isn't what the teams going with wide are looking for, we are looking for ease of use. We want something like many of the gatherers last year (33 is a good example) where we can just drive up to a ball full power and pick it up without any fine alignment, almost as if we have some magic vacuum at the front of the robot. Plus there is always fitting on the ramp...

P.S. I love the term BAD and am going to start using it whenever possible.

[Robby Unruh]

Wow, this is a really neck-in-neck poll.

Our team is going wide, for the same reasons that have been made. We want to be able to fit 3 robots on the bridge, and decided this just to stay on the safe side. Another factor that has also been said before, is more room for a ball herder. Maybe not so we can pick up more balls at a time, but so we have more room to work with while it's being built/maintained.

[Jeffy]

In my mind, the game lends itself to wide drives.
Wide-
Wider entrance for balls into frame
Ease of use for pickup because of this^
Ease of use of bridge and fitting robots on it

Narrow-
Possibility to be more stable when crossing bump and/or bridge
"Traditional"

If you can make a bot that is "stable enough" in a wide configuration, then I think it is the best option.