|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Quote:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756 |
|
#17
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
I saw a team at Western Michigan in AimHigh that didn't have a drive. Their plan was to just sit and shoot. The bot would basically open up to make it easier for the human player to load. Even tho they didn't quite getting working right I thought it was a cool strategy. Just as a note, to this day it's kinda cool to be able to say that we were once so bad that we lost a match to a robot without wheels.
|
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
At some of the shallower events, I'd love to take a robot that can *only* get 10 points a match at pick 24.
Last edited by XaulZan11 : 12-01-2013 at 00:44. |
|
#19
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Quote:
There is some speculation that the reason for the sentence you quote (in R01) is to keep teams from doing something wildly absurd like claiming that the electronics board is the robot, and that the mobility system (whether for climbing or driving around the field) is just a mechanism that might be added, removed, or swapped in different configurations of the robot as described in R05. ![]() |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Remember that the FRAME PERIMETER is defined by wrapping a string around the robot in the BUMPER ZONE. (Why the GDC doesn't add one word to that definition, "tightly", is beyond me, but that's what they mean; that's the way it's been interpreted ever since the concept was created.) This means your FRAME PERIMETER extends across the space from one leg of the 'L' to the other leg. 8" on each end of that space must support a bumper - how are you going to do that?
|
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Our team is seriously considering building a pyramid to climb the pyramid
Last edited by jminer19363 : 16-01-2013 at 18:48. |
|
#22
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Quote:
I think it would be safe to say that you do not need bumpers on the inside corners of an L-shaped robot. |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Quote:
What that image DOES show is that an L-shaped robot's FRAME PERIMETER would be different than you expect. Concave frame perimeters aren't valid. |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
I believe he's saying an L shaped robot like the one in the bottom right corner of the figure.
|
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Exactly, the image shows that all corners of the frame perimeter must have bumpers on both sides. It is impossible to have an inside corner to a frame perimeter so there is no sense in talking about them.
|
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't it all external frame corners? The 'bot in the bottom right corner does have an inside corner that's un-bumpered?
|
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Look at how the FRAME PERIMETER for the L shaped robot is defined. The black line skips right over the concave section. So, no, you don't need bumpers inside the L, that's true, but the inside of the L isn't the frame perimeter. The team in question seemed to think it was.
|
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Quote:
This is off of the climbing mechanism ideas thread located here I think you guys might want to get in touch, it's certainly a viable robot design that could do surprisingly well if it is reliable. |
|
#29
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Wheelless Robot?
Cool idea... if the robot could climb to the top, deposit four coloured discs into the five point goal, and then hoist another robot into the 30 point zone, you might have something there.
Let's see.... that would be 30+20+30=80 points. On the other hand, looking at the "robot in three days" machine scoring into the 3 point goal, it might be easier to: Score 3 discs in the high goal during auto, return and load with four discs, scoring 3 of them into the high goal each trip, completing three such trips, and then complete a ten point climb. 18+27+10= 55 points. So it looks good for the stationary climber... if they can somehow hoist another, non-climbing, machine into the 30 point zone. Otherwise, I'm not sure the math supports the strategy. Jason |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|