Low bar or not

[c.shu]

Originally Posted by first3234

My team is wondering if the low bar is worth it or not and we want to hear from you.

Depends on how good your packaging guru's are.

It is possible to fit everything you need to play the game under the low bar. You just have to plan for the space for each mechanism beforehand rather than look for space when you get around to it.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Depends on how good your packaging guru's are.

It is possible to fit everything you need to play the game under the low bar. You just have to plan for the space for each mechanism beforehand rather than look for space when you get around to it.

It is on the cusp of maddening insanity to attempt to fit EVERY mechanism under the 15" while designing and working to being the BEST at something*. I will have a lot of respect for a team which stays under ~15" and can play every aspect of this game with any level of repeat-ability.

The really nice side effect is that even with large 8" wheels and a high ground clearance, c.g. is very low given the decision to attempt the low bar. In fact, I can move our battery from it lowest-mountable point in the frame to above the drive train transmissions and shift c.g. up by only about 1/8" (according to CAD...).

*Something being pick one: Scaling ; High Goal ; Low Goal ; Defense (point prevention) ; breaching ; Autonomous

[c.shu]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It is on the cusp of maddening insanity to attempt to fit EVERY mechanism under the 15" while designing and working to being the BEST at something*. I will have a lot of respect for a team which stays under ~15" and can play every aspect of this game with any level of repeat-ability.

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

We're right there with you.

We pushed to 15". Slowing down a bit to go under is our tradeoff for the extra critical 0.5" of height for a certain mechanism.

On the plus side, the portcullis doesn't have to be raised that far

[catacon]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

Originally Posted by JesseK

We're right there with you.

We pushed to 15". Slowing down a bit to go under is our tradeoff for the extra critical 0.5" of height for a certain mechanism.

On the plus side, the portcullis doesn't have to be raised that far

Yuuuup. We're a bunch of madmen also. The 2016 robot will certainly be our most dense robot ever.

[mrnoble]

We are currently at 13". No climber yet, but we will see.

[MrForbes]

we finally got the robot mostly working today...and tried it on the low bar. It fit.

https://youtu.be/8ZeExbmZBVA

.

[lovelj]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

Yup, lots of nuts in the nuthouse. We are definitely nuts. Another camera angle...

Low robots force discipline. You are either going to have a rats nest which is unreliable or a very tight robot which can survive. This is going to be a rough game. Sadly, no printed robot for 3824 this year... Cracked the frame week 1. If this is a fast game, loads on structural members will be the highest we've ever experienced.

[bearbot]

We have figured out the low bar and Groups A,B and D and have a shooter that can go high or low. Still working out and working on our climber concepts but that was the lowest our list of to dos .