pic: Air Suspension

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by EricH

And remember, now that we are in a bit of a rules discussion: 2010 rules may forbid pneumatics altogether or otherwise make this design either legal or illegal, so anything said here may or may not apply after 1/9/2010.

Seeing as the rookie teams KOP will come with a Air Compressor I have reason to believe that pneumatics will be legal.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Formerly Famous

Seeing as the rookie teams KOP will come with a Air Compressor I have reason to believe that pneumatics will be legal.

Don't tell them, but that's the ballast next year. The pneumatics come back in 2011.

[Jeffy]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Al makes a good point... but it got me thinking that a system like this could be tied in to the robot's pneumatic system and you could actively raise or lower the pressure in the system to achieve different ground clearances... when you want to hold position and not be pushed around, just lower the robot frame right down on to the ground!

But regardless of FRC legality, this is a cool project on its own right.

Jason

Just like airbag systems on low riders. Get some big rims and underglow next .


I realize that this is of no help at all, but trucks are my other hobby than robotics.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
Pneumatic vacuum using cylinders was allowed in 2007 after some discussion, in 2004 it was not. The only legal vacuum devices prior to 2007 were venturis which create vacuum but not by mechanical force. However, even these were not legal in most years.

From 2004 Robot Pneumatic section rules <R54> revised...

• A device that creates a vacuum is not considered to be a pneumatic device, and is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, venturi-type vacuum generators and off-the-shelf vacuum devices (as long a they are powered by one of the Kit motors).

Some teams used vacuum pumps that were COTS items, removed the motors and replaced them with KOP motors. The FP was the motor of choice that year.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Eric,
Pneumatic vacuum using cylinders was allowed in 2007 after some discussion, in 2004 it was not. The only legal vacuum devices prior to 2007 were venturis which create vacuum but not by mechanical force. However, even these were not legal in most years.

From 2004 Robot Pneumatic section rules <R54> revised...

• A device that creates a vacuum is not considered to be a pneumatic device, and is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, venturi-type vacuum generators and off-the-shelf vacuum devices (as long a they are powered by one of the Kit motors).

Some teams used vacuum pumps that were COTS items, removed the motors and replaced them with KOP motors. The FP was the motor of choice that year.

Then two teams were using illegal mechanisms in 2004; a pair of West Coast teams used a setup similar to 386's 2007 one to try to create suction on the 2X ball.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
That is a possibility particularly if this was a week one or two event. I did not look into which Q&A prompted which Team Update, I merely quoted the final robot rules revision.
I do remember at least one team, buying a cheap vacuum cleaner and replacing the motor with an FP. It worked fairly well as I remember.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by EricH

Then two teams were using illegal mechanisms in 2004; a pair of West Coast teams used a setup similar to 386's 2007 one to try to create suction on the 2X ball.

Not to mention Baxter's bot that year....that was a thing of beauty.

[joeweber]

Installed the air suspension. It does work but requires too much work to make it usefull. Keeping the correct pressure and all the systems needed is no justifiable.

[Elgin Clock]

It's not just your bumper zone you can throw out of whack with a design like that, it's your whole profile!
We had a drop down wheel this year that raised the front of our robot up ever so slightly, & when we measured it, the bot was out of profile with the wheel in the down position. We had to cut our frame depth (front to back) a bit so that when it leaned back it was still in profile.
Just one more thing to consider.