|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
I wouldn't trust bumpers to hold a robot. It's not a good idea to carry your robot by the bumpers, so it certainly wouldn't be a good idea to suspend another robot from your bumpers. (Yes, this idea has been discussed earlier in the thread.)
|
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
But with a strong recommendation to not lift (as in just picking up the robot by hand) by the bumpers, how would you plan to support a 150lb robot by your bumper?
|
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
Quote:
On hanging - I agree that the standard field size bar under the robot makes the most sense as something for robots to grab on to, so I happily endorse this standard. Quote:
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
In order to prevent the large cantilever load from a "piggy back" robot, how about the second robot drive under the first suspended robot. Assume the lifted robot can go through the tunnel and therefore could fit under. Since the bumpers are pretty well defined a simple pair of "L" brackets could provide a nest. Then the first robot climbs a little higher lifting both. Both CGs are only a few feet from the tower.
|
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
I am predicting that a lot of bots will use 2 hooks spaced apartsince it's more stable. You should plan accordingly with your hanger rod.
|
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
Some thoughts:
Forget the heavy bars, and just have dangling loops of 1000 lb kevlar cable hanging from near bottom center of first elevated robot, so weight pulled there won't tilt it too much The first robot hanging ideally should drop these cables loops to hang at one or two (low/high) agreed upon heights from its undercarriage, so that they can then easily be engaged by next bot just driving under them with a static hook mounted at the pre-agreed height. Then if 1st bot up tower still has enough remaining power to pull both itself & tow the other bots further up (at 250-400 lb force) add 3 or 6 more points. Also, if bot on floor can pull with its its hook too, even better. The key is locating these pull points as near to vertical axis of center of mass as possible to avoid excess tilting. -RRLedford Note: The bots hooking on may cause the elevated robot to dip below height needed to score 2. |
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
^again, for robots who are using 2 hooks for stability, it would be unwise to have said dangling loops. Also, you would need some way to deploy those without having an entanglement hazard during the match
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: MERGED: Universal Hanging System/Standardized Partner Suspension
Quote:
-RRLedford |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| **FIRST EMAIL**/FSM & Partner Control System/Driver's Station & Beta Testing Call | Mark McLeod | FIRST E-Mail Blast Archive | 0 | 13-11-2009 14:01 |
| First Week Regionals *Merged* | Tom Bottiglieri | Regional Competitions | 34 | 11-03-2005 18:42 |
| Standardized Scouting System/File Format | phrontist | General Forum | 15 | 18-04-2004 17:05 |
| Favorite Part of FIRST <-Merged with old thread | dk5sm5luigi | General Forum | 36 | 25-01-2004 12:11 |