The Portcullis Mystery

[rfolea]

Here is a photo I took in Manchester. I was standing in the Neutral zone at the time (sorry about the blurriness - it was a quick grab ...)

As you can see, the steel tubing is on the Neutral zone side ...

[MrTimKlein]

I read the field diagrams that the steel frame and polycarbonate sheet will *mass* more than 5 pounds, but springs in the side channels will reduce lifting force to just 5 pounds. This might be an issue to any mechanism that is trying to lift the portcullis quickly and inertia becomes a factor.

[DaveL]

Are there any bearings used to reduce friction? I'm wondering if the upward force is on a slight angle, how that will relate to the opening force.
Does anyone know?

[Jared Russell]

Literally every question in this thread is answered in the field drawings. Yes, it is a huge document, and yes, it requires time to read and understand, but it's all there.

[TheGabe]

Anyone notice the angle iron on the base of the portcullis? It's on the courtyard side. What purpose do you think it serves?

[AndreaV]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Literally every question in this thread is answered in the field drawings. Yes, it is a huge document, and yes, it requires time to read and understand, but it's all there.

Originally I thought the same way, then I saw the pictures posted and the plot started to thicken, I realized there is a conflict. It is possible that the field in Manchester may have had the portcullis mounted the wrong way.

Originally Posted by rfolea

Here is a photo I took in Manchester. I was standing in the Neutral zone at the time (sorry about the blurriness - it was a quick grab ...)

As you can see, the steel tubing is on the Neutral zone side ...

That picture, along with this picture posted on firstinspires.org of the same field appears to conflict with page 214 of the field drawings.


the field drawing shows that the raised lip and the steel box tube are on the same side, with both facing the opposing team's courtyard.

So now I am left wondering if the field was wrong, or the drawings are wrong, both possibilities are supported by the evidence available on firstinspires.org. Personally, I would trust the field drawings, I think they probably just assembled it incorrectly for the physical field, it was probably the first time it was assembled, so mistakes can happen.

Thoughts? I think a Q&A might be in order, but if I have it all wrong let me know.

[JayNico]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

What I wonder is how solid it is. Can it take a hit from a speeding robot undamaged because I'm sure it'll get smashed into more than once.

I assume that it's reasonably flexible, I don't know anything specific about the material but FIRST has to have accounted for the high-velocity antics of this year. If not, we're in for a lot of penalties.