Driving long?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Do I hear an octocanum drive from 1551?

I don't know what would make you think that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GbrprUtC4o

[Madison]

I am not too surprised by the number of teams driving in a long configuration, but I am surprised by the number of them using a <=12" opening for ball collection.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Madison

I am not too surprised by the number of teams driving in a long configuration, but I am surprised by the number of them using a <=12" opening for ball collection.

Don't you expect that most of them will have some kind of deployable appendage for collection?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Don't you expect that most of them will have some kind of deployable appendage for collection?

I am sure lots of folks will, but I've come across a number of pictures here that show narrow ball collection openings. Perhaps that'll feature an additional system that funnels balls into that narrow opening, but that hasn't been clearly the case so far.

[pfreivald]

True that. It hasn't been clear on our videos so far, but we've got a deployable collector. I've just assumed that everyone else driving longways does, too... (Except perhaps some inexperienced teams that don't realize how critical it is.) I think in this game that even if we were driving wide, we'd still have a deployable collector!

One of the primary reasons for driving with the long orientation for us was barrier crossing; another is center of gravity driving up the bridge.

[wireties]

FIRST Team 1296 went long so going over the bump will be easier and mounting a ramp lower device seemed easier (given the geometry of our gatherer). Madison is right about the small aperture gatherer mechanisms on long chassis, thus ours gathers from all 4 sides.

Our mecanum drive alignment and software seems really good this year and we can spin in place once on the bridge in a couple of seconds. But is it worth it to try? I agree that 3 (traditional) robot balancing is problematic w/o time to practice the maneuver - hopefully we make it far enough for it to be feasible.

Originally Posted by wireties

I agree that 3 (traditional) robot balancing is problematic w/o time to practice the maneuver - hopefully we make it far enough for it to be feasible.

Or use 2 long robots, one wide robot. 256 is going wide this year for a few reasons, mainly because of our awesome offense, and ability to traverse the field without tipping over.

Most of all, I want to see the wide:long ratio of robots on the field vs. the wide:long ratio of robots who make it to the championships.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Or use 2 long robots, one wide robot. 256 is going wide this year for a few reasons, mainly because of our awesome offense, and ability to traverse the field without tipping over.

Most of all, I want to see the wide:long ratio of robots on the field vs. the wide:long ratio of robots who make it to the championships.

Agreed - perhaps an automagical (eg s/w assisted) maneuver that enters the ramp in a long orientation but pivots as it balances - hmmm

[Greg Leighton]

I like a long bot for greater field mobility which in my mind means moving over the barrier quickly with little risk of getting stuck or tipping. Like most I believe there are designs that will allow you to collect balls quickly as a long bot, so that shouldn't be too much of a disadvantage. As for the bridge balancing, I think it is far to difficult to assume you will be able to balance the bridge with 3 long bots, I think teams will design for this problem.

Originally Posted by Joe Schornak

I forsee on problems in getting three long robots on the bridge, as long as you designate one team to balance and the other two teams to hold very still.

EDIT: I assume you meant "no problems"

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Long bots with a low, centered CoG should still be able to balance three at a time, if the end robots hang off their front wheels.

With 3 true long bots (44 " long with bumpers) you have either two robots halfway off the bridge or an entire robot not taking up and bridge space at all. So in the scenario where you have two robots hanging of either end of the bridge, assuming they have a centered CG the robot in the middle cant move at all without tipping the bridge. Sounds a tad bit difficult to pull something like this off, unless you have designed your robot to do this and have had practice doing it. But this would be my last resort to bridge balancing, I would try and find another way for a long bot to accommodate bridge balancing like others have mentioned.

[mrnoble]

[/i]For all intents and purposes, our foot print is ~32" x 27.5"

Wow, came to the same exact size! Nice.

[Hawiian Cadder]

We chose to make our robot long because Typically wide robots have issues with tipping. Because the motors do not exert force in the short direction, there is less ability for the robot to get put in a situation where it could tip. We also like the drive-ability gains for a long robot, the turns feel more responsive and quick because the wheels are closer to the middle of the robot.