Wide aspect vs Narrow aspect

[VanMan]

After looking at all the pictures in the picture gallery, I noticed that most of the robots, or at least more than I had expected, are narrow aspect(the front is the shorter than the side of the robot, I don't know if other teams use this terminology). Our robot is wide aspect and can pick up balls along almost the entire front. Also, it can turn more easily than any of our narrow aspect robots; which seems like a big deal for trying to collect balls off the floor. So, why narrow aspect? Are there some benefits that I am over looking?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by VanMan

After looking at all the pictures in the picture gallery, I noticed that most of the robots, or at least more than I had expected, are narrow aspect(the front is the shorter than the side of the robot, I don't know if other teams use this terminology). Our robot is wide aspect and can pick up balls along almost the entire front. Also, it can turn more easily than any of our narrow aspect robots; which seems like a big deal for trying to collect balls off the floor. So, why narrow aspect? Are there some benefits that I am over looking?

I was thinking about the same thing today. I guess the answer is people don't even think of building a wide aspect robot, or are fine with the setup they have been using for years.

Having a narrow robot will make it easier to keep the COG of the robot over its supporting structure as it climbs the ramp, therefore reducing the risk of tipping.

[Corey Balint]

The major problem is that if you have a higher center of gravity while going with this wide aspect, you are more probable to fall over while going up the ramp.

[StephLee]

I'm not sure anyone on our team thought of using the wide side as the front...hm...I'll have to remember that for next year...I guess the benefits depend on what kind of bot you make, just like with anything else.

[Rick TYler]

If you go up the ramp "sideways" you are more likely to tip. Sideways robots are more likely to drive out from under their game systems, if they are tall (we almost did this at Bellevue, and we are aligned along the long axis). You give up fore-and-aft stability in favor of your wider ball collector. It's not a bad choice, but I'm guessing -- based on last year -- that nine out of ten bots are aligned the other way.

[lukevanoort]

Although a narrow robot loses a bit of turning capability, it can gain it back thorugh proper design. The reason we went narrow this year is because of our scoring device and ball pickup device. If we were wide, we wouldn't have any room for ball storage. That said, our most successful robot ever (OCCAM 3: The Beast, 2003) was very close to 50:50. It also is the easiest to drive, since it doesn't make snap turns like this year's 6WD and it does turn unlike last year's long 4WD.

[Greg Marra]

We found it pretty difficult to fit an entire ball harvesting system, ball storing system, ball feeding system, and ball shooting system into the 38" of the robot's length as was. I think turning the bot sideways would even further reduce the amount of space we would have had for all of these different systems.

While a robot like 195's may have benefitted from having a wider area to pick balls up, I think our bot was better built in the "traditional" orientation.

[sanddrag]

We have a wide robot this year. We chose this configuration for driveability and maneuverability. While 6wd is better than 4wd for long robots, it isn't the be all end all of drive systems. We had 6wd with a long robot last year and it still didn't drive as nicely as a wide robot. Also, the rocking can be annoying.

This year, stability is not too bad because our wheelbase is still fairly long since we are using wheels that are just under 3.5" diameter. We still went with 6wd this year to get up the ramp and still have low ground clearance and small wheels, however, all of our wheels lie in the same plane; the center ones are not lower. It is the best driving robot we've ever had. Our CG is still low enough where it goes up the ramp just fine.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that wide robots drive the best. You can turn without loading up your motors too much.

[KTorak]

We thought about both aspects, but chose narrow over wide becuase of the ramp. However, we had to compromise smooth turning with 4 wheel drive.

[Tim566]

"narrow aspect" allows for more depth in the collector system.

[Ianworld]

Our robot is the narrow aspect. We considered a wide aspect robot, but we thought getting up the ramp would cause us to tip. We still have a relatively wide collector at 20" and our drive train should be good enough at turning. We shall see when the competition arrives if we made the correct decision.