Poll: Wide or Narrow Chassis?

[viperred396]

We are going wide

we are somewhat worried about tipping when attempting the bum so we are trying to create some kind of Wheely Bar so we dont tip

[Mr. Pockets]

I'm guessing narrow, but not sure yet. Feels like it would allow for a more convenient placement of the control board as related to ball intake.

[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.

[kws4000]

SQUARE. Meccano wheels actually work best with the rollers forming a "perfect" X. That is, the wheels should be in a square, hence square frame (Ether can verify this, I found some white papers of his but I'm too lazy right now to find 'em again.). It doesn't matter which end is front, but one end will have to be the front regardless. You can't swap a hole in the frame halfway through a match!

[Elgin Clock]

What a difference a day makes.

The last time I looked yesterday, long config was wining the poll ~60% to ~40% but now only ~51% to ~49%.

Interesting.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

What a difference a day makes.

The last time I looked yesterday, long config was wining the poll ~60% to ~40% but now only ~51% to ~49%.

Interesting.

I think that as more experienced teams answer, we see folks who are not afraid to leave their comfort zone.

[ratdude747]

Not on a team currently, but if it was my bot I would go wide with a 14" wheelie bar that was retractable and also function as a bridge tipper.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by kws4000

SQUARE. Meccano wheels actually work best with the rollers forming a "perfect" X. That is, the wheels should be in a square, hence square frame (Ether can verify this, I found some white papers of his but I'm too lazy right now to find 'em again.). It doesn't matter which end is front, but one end will have to be the front regardless. You can't swap a hole in the frame halfway through a match!

Square where the wheels contact the floor? or square at the outside of the frame?

Originally Posted by squirrel

Square where the wheels contact the floor? or square at the outside of the frame?

I think it only matters where the wheels contact the frame. One would just build the robot square as well to make it less likely to tip, or to make it look better.

[Mr. Pockets]

DonRotolo, you are a genius BAD is so good xD

On a more serious note to the people considering wide chassis for the potential for a wider BAD™, a word of caution. I had a bit of experience with working on a BAD™ and conveyor system a few years back. It is CRUCIAL that if you make your BAD™ wide, you have some way of funneling balls down to a more narrow path for whatever your scoring device is (unless your scoring device is very wide, though I'm not expecting many of those this year). The worse possible feeling in the world is building an excellent BAD™ and the game pieces getting jammed because the robot has no good way to shunt the pieces into single file.

[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.