|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Is your team planning to go under the low bar? | |||
| Yes |
|
410 | 87.61% |
| No |
|
58 | 12.39% |
| Voters: 468. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Low Bar
Moreover, a robot that has been designed to fit under the low bar as a rigid swept volume may find that things work a bit differently at 10+ feet per second...and especially with bouncy wheels...
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar
Quote:
Crossing defenses is very dynamic, CAD doesn't really show whether a design will work or not. Adding pneumatic wheels just makes things even more unpredictable. We weren't at all happy with that 6wd pneumatic setup, we're doing something else. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar
What about it were you unhappy with?
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar
For reasons explained in the video. For one, you have a severe loss of control and precision going over the defenses when the drivetrain is doing nosedives across the defenses. It also wasn't that great at going over slowly. In short we weren't satisfied with going over defenses if we couldn't do it in a fast AND controlled manner so we opted not to go with a modified kitbot. Even if it meant sacrificing build time that could have went towards something else like the shooter. It seemed/still seems worth it since the drivetrain is literally half the game this year.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|