|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Right now we weigh around 116-117lbs
Our frame without anything on it is only 10 lbs We have 6 cims and 4 mini cims, 3 banebots or andymarks(I cant remember) and a compressor I thought we would be way over, but we designed our robot to be as light as possible We just have to add Plexiglas around the sides for sponsors and a couple of lights I hope we stay under! BTW, 6 cims on your drivetrain is definitely an advantage, I would also take them off last. Aslo: Maybe swiss cheese your robot? Ours is swiss cheesed for two reasons: Save weight and to have somewhere for cables to run |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Weighed ours on Saturday, and I was surprised how much it weighed - 120lbs exactly, with a battery on board. Our proposed solution: 13lb steel block
![]() |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
We're currently less than 90 pounds. That's right. 84.7 pounds. Four CIM, eight wheel tank drive.
Our secret? HOLES. A. Crap. Ton. Of. Holes. Look's like we'll need to find ways to ADD weight this year. lololol |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
So, last year we were ditching wire guides at competition to get under the weight limit, so we at 4464 were admittedly a bit apprehensive about weight this year.
However, we weighed our robot, sans compressor, tanks, solenoids, and electrical board for the first time last night. Came in at 67 lbs. We've got a 6-CIM drive, two PG188's, one RS550, and four 1.5'' bore, 8'' stroke cylinders. We are very pleased. About half of our superstructure is 1/16'' aluminum tube, and the other half is 1/8''. We've actually overbuilt a lot of our mechanisms, it's just that our design is very simple and doesn't call for all that much actual stuff. Here's a pic: ![]() Last edited by Oblarg : 11-02-2014 at 10:15. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Hoping you mean Lexan/polycarbonate/Makrolon... Plexiglas is prone to shattering.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Quote:
According to our BOM (we don't actually have the whole robot built to weigh it for sure) we are going to clock in at about 110lbs with what we currently have planned. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
In 2010 we guessed our weight to be around 110lbs. Never could get it on a scale.
Showed up to the WPI regional and weighed in at 142 Spent the first hours of practice day changing the wheels and drivetrain and cutting everything off. Then measured the frame. It was out of square by 1/4", and wouldn't fit in the box. Spent the rest of the day shortening the frame bu cutting sections out by hand with a hacksaw and re-assembling the robot. We learned a valuable lesson about being 2" under frame size and ALWAYS weight your bot _before_ showing up to a regional. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Weighed ours the other day (with a couple of bumpers on), and the scale read like 80 lbs. It's a decently accurate scale since it tells me I weight ~120 (I do). Also, the bot is essentially done.
We haven't been this underweight since Lunacy. PS. And it's made of C-channel and 1" 80/20. Last edited by Christopher149 : 11-02-2014 at 11:06. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Last we checked we were sitting at around 103 lbs with everything on the robot.
|
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
One of our students suggested last night that we weigh our robot....so I'm bringing in a scale today. My guess is around 90, we'll see.
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
We are at 80.1 lbs, with a 6CIM drivetrain, a pickup, and a shooter. We still have to put on a 2 in stroke cylinder, and that shouldn't add too much weight.
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Our Robot , yet I=to be named from Team 1075 weight is about 92 lbs all in. We have 4 Cim " not be release " hardly ever seen style of drive with interior tough box gear changes 14 and 24 tooth. we use 2 more cims for shooter our ball, one fisher price for ball pick up along with 2 van motors for the arm mover. base frame id 1by3 tube 1/8 wall, arm is 1x1 channel, removalable shooter frame is 1x2 channel, arm is 1x1 channel and tube. WE control everything with 7 Talons ( Expensive ). I think the secret is our welding student who can held aluminum like no tomorrow. Pics later in the week. Good luck teams.
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Our robot hit 110 lbs on a very old bathroom scale today, which is almost exactly what our CAD said. We plan to acquire a better scale, but we had some people with known weights "calibrate" that one. Our structure is pretty simple but is mostly heavy 2x1x.125" tubing and we're using all 6 CIMs, 4 miniCIMs, and a pair of AM 9015s on the PG-71 gearboxes (no, we don't plan to pop the breaker every match
)The tubing is mostly solid so we may try to make some sort of jig to swiss cheese our unbagged parts. Life would probably have been much easier if we used the thinner Vex tubing, but they were out of stock until the day we placed our order. We may also switch out the miniCIMs with banebots motors in versaplanetaries or CIMiles if we can afford it. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
Rookie team here and we WAY over built (the team takes durability way too firmly). We are at 110lbs and do not shoot. We are using 3 by 1.5 in double extrusion for arms which weigh in at 50 lbs. And do not have much to save weight in. On the plus side, we can *accidentally* be a battering ram.
![]() |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2014 FRC's Biggest Loser
And if we ever meet on the field I sure hope you are full of Gracious Professionalism, because this comment is not what first is about, and as a rookie team you will not go far with this type of comment. I wish if I was a robot inspector in your regional you never make it to the field if I had seen this post. Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|