Bumper Update

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Blizzard3197

Okay, so the gap for the ball is 10-12 inches, right? And the rules state that there must be 8 inches on either side of the opening from the corner out, like figure 4-3, bottom left robot. So 10+8+8=26, which is a lot. And that would not work for our previous diagram for our robot.

Though we're playing around with the idea of an arm/sucker combo with wheels to suck up the ball and the arm to aim.

I didn't ask for how it would affect you. I asked for the NOW dimension. Read: As your robot sits right now, in CAD or in "person", is it <= 120"? And what exactly are you working with for dimensions? There may be ways to adjust to be able to use a gap.

BTW, 26" is actually a rather narrow robot, even under frame perimeter being the dimensional driver. Many teams will build more "square" robots.

[Blizzard3197]

Originally Posted by EricH

I didn't ask for how it would affect you. I asked for the NOW dimension. Read: As your robot sits right now, in CAD or in "person", is it <= 120"? And what exactly are you working with for dimensions? There may be ways to adjust to be able to use a gap.

BTW, 26" is actually a rather narrow robot, even under frame perimeter being the dimensional driver. Many teams will build more "square" robots.

Hm.. I'd have to talk with the lead CADer...

It was 21" x 35".

Which, for the front to have the necessary width, we'd have to add 5 inches. 26 x 35 would = 122 (greater than 120), so if we take 2 inches from the back, we'd have 26 x 33 = 118 (which would fit).

And it'd be square...

However, trying to fit a 10" ball into a 10" hole would be practically impossible, so bump the hole up to 12", take 2 away from length, which would be 31 x 28 = 118. However, add 6 inches of bumper, and it wouldn't fit into the batter near the tower, making the low goal/climbing practically impossible.

And that's why we aren't going in that direction. Sorry for the miscommunication.

[EricH]

Ah, that makes more sense.

I'd definitely go over-bumper in that case. 10" ball, 15" to work with-3.25" for bumper width, so there's about an inch to play with on the far side of the ball. You could also leave a gap in the bumper to help center the ball going over. You'd have about 5" of gap available if you opted to use it, which could also make it possible for a full-height bumper to let the ball go under. (Haven't measured a ball to check.)

Decisions, decisions... seems like some prototyping might be in order.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by EricH

You'd have about 5" of gap available if you opted to use it, which could also make it possible for a full-height bumper to let the ball go under. (Haven't measured a ball to check.)

see the video link in my post above. you don't need a gap to get a ball under the bumper, if the bumper is at the top of the BUMPER ZONE. that's one of the very first things I wanted to test when I saw the game...

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Blizzard3197

Hm.. I'd have to talk with the lead CADer...

It was 21" x 35".

Which, for the front to have the necessary width, we'd have to add 5 inches. 26 x 35 would = 122 (greater than 120), so if we take 2 inches from the back, we'd have 26 x 33 = 118 (which would fit).

And it'd be square...

However, trying to fit a 10" ball into a 10" hole would be practically impossible, so bump the hole up to 12", take 2 away from length, which would be 31 x 28 = 118. However, add 6 inches of bumper, and it wouldn't fit into the batter near the tower, making the low goal/climbing practically impossible.

And that's why we aren't going in that direction. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Yes, your math is correct (what did you mean by "square"). We are planning a 31 long x 28 wide (plus an 1/8 for sheathing for 118.5" perimeter). The longer wheel base has a shallower tilt angle as it goes over the defenses (less tippy) and as you noted has a better chance of getting on the batter.

Why do you think the 28" + 6" side wont fit against the tower on the batter? Is your 28" the width or length?

[Blizzard3197]

Originally Posted by gpetilli

Yes, your math is correct (what did you mean by "square"). We are planning a 31 long x 28 wide (plus an 1/8 for sheathing for 118.5" perimeter). The longer wheel base has a shallower tilt angle as it goes over the defenses (less tippy) and as you noted has a better chance of getting on the batter.

Why do you think the 28" + 6" side wont fit against the tower on the batter? Is your 28" the width or length?

By square I mean rectangular.

31 wide 28 long, though we're working now with more of a trapezoid shape, with angled sides. I'm not entirely sure why this design wouldn't fit onto the batter. Maybe it'd get stuck on the large, angled surface?

[gpetilli]

Originally Posted by Blizzard3197

By square I mean rectangular.

31 wide 28 long, though we're working now with more of a trapezoid shape, with angled sides. I'm not entirely sure why this design wouldn't fit onto the batter. Maybe it'd get stuck on the large, angled surface?

double check the space between the dividers on the batter. I did not find a dimension, but they look to be 2'6" close to the tower - which will fit a 28" wide robot (assuming bumpers higher than divider) up against the tower, but not a 31". If you dont plan on scaling the tower, it may not matter.