Design Help for offseason bot

[Sperkowsky]

Hello everyone.

So our team had some issues with our robot this year with a design error that was so big it was instant fatality. (The elevator was just bad no need for pics).

We ended the sbpli regional in last place and it really crushed our team.

So we decided to build an entirely new robot from scratch.

We are using a spare chassi from last year thats stripped down to 6 inch mecanums.

Our first issue was that it was in the long configuration. It was possible to work with but we all decided to go for a team 20 apporach and have the mecanums facing sideways.

our second decision was material choice. We made the bad decision of using bar stock for an elevator track so this time we chose something much more robust and went for 2x1 aluminum rectangular tubing.

For the elevator assembly we are going to take peices of bar stock with 2 bearings on the sides gripping the tubing. With 4 sets of 2 bearings we believe it will slide nicely with any weight load and again the assembly is held together with 2x1 rectangular tubing.

we also decided to do powered intakes with 2 andymark motors with plannetary boxes. We dont know if how we them mounted is the best way though.

one big decision for us right how is whether its a big deal to have a built in ramp or just tether one.

The next big decision is what material to use to power the lift. Some people vote webbing some vote chain. Chain seems more robust and doesnt seem to fall victim to back drive as much where webbing seems more forgiving. chain will allow us to do a built in ramp as there is a few inches where we can attatch the chain to the ends of the elevator assembly. Another question there is do you think we need a chain on each side.

for the actual manipulator we think we are going to reattach our plastic tabs similar to ri3d indiana and have a raised hook section for recycling bins similar to cybertooth robotics.

btw most of our structure will be rivited together with L brackets

Heres a pic
http://gyazo.com/dca65feb9971c9cbbb49cc609963b393
thanks

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Our first issue was that it was in the long configuration. It was possible to work with but we all decided to go for a team 20 apporach and have the mecanums facing sideways.

Would not recommend.
We faced issues all year with strafing into our objectives, and only once we got partway through Championships did we finally solve them and our robot functioned mostly as intended.

Otherwise the design looks like a smart way to play the game, and backfeeding with "Indiana-tabs" seems to be the smart, simple design for 2015 human loaders. Even simpler is forgoing backfeeding and using a ramp, as many other successful teams did.

Good luck!

[ToddF]

Sam,
Your team is embarking on a great exercise. You are starting a robot design with a completely blank slate, but with the ability to look back at how the game was most effectively played. If you do it right, this is a rare opportunity.

I'm going to suggest that you are putting the cart way before the horse. You are jumping into the design phase before you have done the most basic step: game analysis and establishing priorities. Before ever beginning to design our robot, our team always begins with the game analysis process we learned from Den Black. I encourage you to go through this process yourselves. You can learn about the details by watching the following two videos (one, two)

When you have done the analysis, post the results, and I'll be happy to give you some guidance on your design. But until you have decided how you will play the game, and prioritized your scoring actions, you aren't engineering; you're just winging it. You are jumping right into detailed design before you have defined the problem in a way that will guide you to a viable solution. That's probably the single biggest mistake in FRC, and it's nearly always fatal.

Check out my youtube channel to see how we approached the problem. We were fairly successful, and won two regionals this year. This does NOT mean that you should copy our robot. It's the process you need to learn, not how to copy the solutions of others.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Would not recommend.
We faced issues all year with strafing into our objectives, and only once we got partway through Championships did we finally solve them and our robot functioned mostly as intended.

Otherwise the design looks like a smart way to play the game, and backfeeding with "Indiana-tabs" seems to be the smart, simple design for 2015 human loaders. Even simpler is forgoing backfeeding and using a ramp, as many other successful teams did.

Good luck!

The reason why we want to do the wide chassi with front facing wheels is because we kind of have to.

Changing the wheel config is not an option with the chassi and going facing the other way makes it very hard to build as there's no good way to mount the 2x1s.

Our only option would be building a chassi from the beginning something we have never done before.

What helped you sort the issues out was it Driving issues, code issues, any guidance would be awesome but the long chassi is something we really can't change.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Our only option would be building a chassi from the beginning something we have never done before.

Ya know, a lot of teams will take the offseason to prototype new drive ideas, including building a custom frame from the beginning. Just a thought.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by ToddF

Sam,
Your team is embarking on a great exercise. You are starting a robot design with a completely blank slate, but with the ability to look back at how the game was most effectively played. If you do it right, this is a rare opportunity.

I'm going to suggest that you are putting the cart way before the horse. You are jumping into the design phase before you have done the most basic step: game analysis and establishing priorities. Before ever beginning to design our robot, our team always begins with the game analysis process we learned from Den Black. I encourage you to go through this process yourselves. You can learn about the details by watching the following two videos (one, two)

When you have done the analysis, post the results, and I'll be happy to give you some guidance on your design. But until you have decided how you will play the game, and prioritized your scoring actions, you aren't engineering; you're just winging it. You are jumping right into detailed design before you have defined the problem in a way that will guide you to a viable solution. That's probably the single biggest mistake in FRC, and it's nearly always fatal.

Check out my youtube channel to see how we approached the problem. We were fairly successful, and won two regionals this year. This does NOT mean that you should copy our robot. It's the process you need to learn, not how to copy the solutions of others.

It's funny I followed your robot design process pretty closely throughout the season and one thing we will probably pull from is the disc brake.

But that aside

Our single objective is a simple reliable robot that can stack from the hp station or the landfill.

A ramp would speed up a load from the human player station and our powered intakes will allow us to be fast Through the landfill.

We want to be able to cap a six stack which is why we have the raised hook to lift the recycling cans off.

Although in higher level play cans are a determining factor a can grabber is more of an add on then a key design feature at the moment.

Our goal is 2 capped six stacks that is not too Crazy unreasonable but is 84 points.

Our biggest design factor has to be reliability

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ya know, a lot of teams will take the offseason to prototype new drive ideas, including building a custom frame from the beginning. Just a thought.

Not a bad idea.

We put in a pretty big grainger material order and will have extra 1x1 tubing 2x1 tubing and a good amount of rev extrusion.

What design do you think would work best with our tuff box minis and mecanums.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Our single objective is a simple reliable robot that can stack from the hp station or the landfill.
[...]
We want to be able to cap a six stack which is why we have the raised hook to lift the recycling cans off.

[...]
Our biggest design factor has to be reliability

Now comes the fun part. I'm only going to pick on you for a few of the items you listed--see above--but as an exercise, you might want to go through this with your team. It'll give you a great insight into designing a competitive robot (or other product).

Why? Please answer for all three items. (Does not have to be made public.)
--Why do you want to be able to stack from either location? Why is that important, or IS it important? Why is stacking important? (OK, seriously, I'm getting a little on the off-base side here. But, this is something that if we'd never seen the game before, I'd most definitely be asking.)

--Why a 6-stack? Can you do shorter if need be (ability vs need, definitely something to look at)? Why is the recycling can important?

--Why is reliability the biggest design factor? What about competitiveness? Or coolness? (TBH, I know what you're getting at. But, again, if this were at the beginning of the season, I'd be looking at "is an unreliable high-point item better than a reliable medium-point item?"--I often come back with "no" myself.)


Now, back to your other question of what design will work the best: That's for you to figure out. Start by answering these questions... and that'll give you some requirements... and any design you come up with will need to be evaluated against those requirements.
1) Is it important to be able to go over the scoring platforms?
2) What orientation do we expect to handle totes in?
3) Is it important to be able to keep pool noodles out of the drivetrain?
4) Is it important to protect the drivetrain from robot-robot collisions?

Those questions would answer ground clearance, overall width, and a couple of key addons (or not-so-key addons). A good answer for #1 might come back as "It is not important, but doing so places these limits on play. We can't handle those, therefore it is important (or vice-versa)." Which would then translate into a requirement "This robot SHALL (or does not have to) be able to go over the scoring platforms with ease". This will then drive some ground-clearance decisions. Some searching of CD-Media or FRC Designs will probably turn up some passable drivebases that could be adapted to fit your requirements.

[Tweedy399]

One thing that my team and many others teams did was add an RC "stabilizer". This would grab the RC initially and follow it all the way to the top of the stack to secure the RC and the whole stack. This can even not be powered but just ride with the tote manipulator and the stack. We have found great success in this and I would highly recommend it.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

The reason why we want to do the wide chassi with front facing wheels is because we kind of have to.

Changing the wheel config is not an option with the chassi and going facing the other way makes it very hard to build as there's no good way to mount the 2x1s.

Our only option would be building a chassi from the beginning something we have never done before.

What helped you sort the issues out was it Driving issues, code issues, any guidance would be awesome but the long chassi is something we really can't change.

I have no idea how they fixed the Mecanum drive- its one of those darned programming things I've never been good at. However, even when the robot was working at full capacity, the strafing was never that great, and placing stacks on a scoring platform in the strafing direction is not easy to do.

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

It's funny I followed your robot design process pretty closely throughout the season and one thing we will probably pull from is the disc brake.

But that aside

Our single objective is a simple reliable robot that can stack from the hp station or the landfill.

A ramp would speed up a load from the human player station and our powered intakes will allow us to be fast Through the landfill.

We want to be able to cap a six stack which is why we have the raised hook to lift the recycling cans off.

Although in higher level play cans are a determining factor a can grabber is more of an add on then a key design feature at the moment.

Our goal is 2 capped six stacks that is not too Crazy unreasonable but is 84 points.

Our biggest design factor has to be reliability

I would focus on either human player loading or landfill loading, not both. And then also consider how you're going to place the stacks, not just how you're going to build them.

ToddF is right, though. You need to come to these conclusions with your team via an in-depth strategy analysis, and pick the right design for you.

I would recommend building in the longwise direction, and for human loading using a ramp, re-designing the backfeed ramp, or considering a design like Team 1325, our fantastic alliance captain at championships.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I have no idea how they fixed the Mecanum drive- its one of those darned programming things I've never been good at. However, even when the robot was working at full capacity, the strafing was never that great, and placing stacks on a scoring platform in the strafing direction is not easy to do.



I would focus on either human player loading or landfill loading, not both. And then also consider how you're going to place the stacks, not just how you're going to build them.

ToddF is right, though. You need to come to these conclusions with your team via an in-depth strategy analysis, and pick the right design for you.

I would recommend building in the longwise direction, and for human loading using a ramp, re-designing the backfeed ramp, or considering a design like Team 1325, our fantastic alliance captain at championships.

We like the human loader much better so If we have to chose a focus I have to say


Chute door

Yes chute door


We have a very good programming team. Like next level good in fact it's our greatest asset by far. The issue is we are losing our lead programmer who is a amazing. Tomorrow we shall see if he can make it move perfectly if he can't we will design a chassi I guess.

For placing the stacks I want to slowly push them out with our powered intakes that way we can don't have to fully go up the scorinf platform and risk tipping.

[Monochron]

The advice and recommendations in Adam Heard's videos on elevator design were absolutely critical to our team being able to design and build a robust elevator this year:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCX0Y091TMRKi8PqNfYoImiw

My only additional comment to those would be that if you do not have precision machining capabilities then makes sure to get as close tolerances as you can when building the elevator. We went with mostly COTS parts but our aluminum tubing of slightly differing lengths pushed the frame slightly out of square.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Monochron

The advice and recommendations in Adam Heard's videos on elevator design were absolutely critical to our team being able to design and build a robust elevator this year:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCX0Y091TMRKi8PqNfYoImiw

My only additional comment to those would be that if you do not have precision machining capabilities then makes sure to get as close tolerances as you can when building the elevator. We went with mostly COTS parts but our aluminum tubing of slightly differing lengths pushed the frame slightly out of square.

We have a water jet cutting sponsor that we haven't used yet. Those plates may be a good time

[Dunngeon]

Reiterating what Todd and Eric said, it really seems like you're wanting to cherry pick things that worked for other teams. Looking at the successful designs is great, but what do you gain in the long term from building a good, robust robot for THIS game?

It's a very important question, because as Todd said, you have the opportunity to simulate an in-season design process that your team can use to hone your strategic analysis skills, prototyping, and robot development. It's an opportunity many teams would love to have, and I really hope your team doesn't squander the opportunity.

Todd and Eric both hit on this, but it really needs to be emphasized.
Spend as much time as you can analyzing the game and potential strategies to play it. This is one of the major differentiating factors between top tier teams and everyone else. Time is THE biggest luxury you have in the off-season, and practice now will really help your team when the 6-week build season kicks off next January.

I know, Strategic analysis can be dry, boring, and tedious. It's extremely easy to skip critical pieces of the game unless the entire team buys into it. This can be the unfortunate result when you don't spend enough time on strategy/game analysis. An incoherent strategy is what killed us at the first event, because we didn't develop a clear game strategy to meet our design goal of 2 capped six stacks a match. We 'winged' it, building an elevator on a drive-base and hoping we would be able to play the game.

Please try and avoid that pit that we fell into. Spend the time early, so you don't waste the next 10 weeks building and then redesigning a robot to be competitive.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Tweedy399

One thing that my team and many others teams did was add an RC "stabilizer". This would grab the RC initially and follow it all the way to the top of the stack to secure the RC and the whole stack. This can even not be powered but just ride with the tote manipulator and the stack. We have found great success in this and I would highly recommend it.

Great recommendation.

I would also recommend an external ramp if you choose not to have one internally built as part of your robot.
We spent $10 buying 1/16" angle alumimun and a thin 1/32" acrylic sheet in making a simple ramp that worked wonders for us this year.
The same spectra cord used for our elevator, we used as our tether and it never got tangled in our wheels for 3 events and counting.