<R11> Dimension wrong?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

There is a revised Robot rules on the First website
04- The Robot Rev-.pdf. the dimension gives 152.4 cm as the max dimension.

[Ricky Q.]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

There is a revised Robot rules on the First website
04- The Robot Rev-.pdf. the dimension gives 152.4 cm as the max dimension.

I see 152.4 cm for max Starting Height but still see the discrepancy in Playing Config dimensions.

RQ

[Ricky Q.]

Threads merged.

[DonRotolo]

What is wrong with me?

38 inch robot plus 22 inch extension fits in a 60 inch cylinder. 22 inches seems like enough to get halfway across a 30 inch base.

Surely I am missing something here.

[Paul Copioli]

Don,

Your analysis is correct if your robot is <<1in wide otherwise:

Draw a 30 x 38 rectangle. Then draw a 60" diameter circle. Make two points of the robot coincident to the circle ... observe. Believe me, it is brutal.

Also remember that due to the bumper rule this year, any mechanism that tried to go all the way to the floor will have to do it around the bumper. You just lost another 3 inches.

Paul

[pfreivald]

...so maybe our minibots have to be deployed onto the base, find and attach to the tower themselves, and then climb/jump/shimmy...?

Yeah, this one looks a doozy!

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Don,

Your analysis is correct if your robot is <<1in wide otherwise:

Draw a 30 x 38 rectangle. Then draw a 60" diameter circle. Make two points of the robot coincident to the circle ... observe. Believe me, it is brutal.

You mean like this??


Generously drawn up & provided by Arthur Dutra IV from FRC 228.
So... what's the issue?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

So... what's the issue?

The space in front of the robot is barely enough for an end effector... if you're building in Inches.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The space in front of the robot is barely enough for an end effector... if you're building in Inches.

Maybe FIRST is trying to tell us that metric is the way to go. Really, I can't blame them...

[Elgin Clock]

For reference in addition to the pic up above, it is 18.53" from the front of the bot to the edge of the circle in front of the bot (centrally located to the tangency of course).
Yay design constraints. Gotta love them!

[Trent B]

And that edge of the circle being 18.53 away is if your manipulator is ~≤1inch wide

Some figures
Width of manipulator measured parallel to the 28" edge of the robot and parallel to the ground

1" manipulator cut off .004"
2" cut of .017"
4" cut off .0667"
6" cut off .15"
8" cut off .268"
10" cut off .42"
12" cut off .606"

...

28" cut off 3.467 (the figure for the standard 28 x 38 bot)

[Randy Picolet]

Don't forget there are at least two other degrees of freedom here... the end effector could extend over the wide dimension of the bot (i.e. wide drive profile), and the bot frame can be smaller than 28 by 38...

[Bill_B]

Could the original drawing be modified to contain a typical game piece? Beginning to look very dicey for pickup off the carpet. also for extension to get to a peg. They are 14" (?) so effector would not be able to slide anything very far onto one? Five feet never seemed so cramped until now.

[Paul Copioli]

Elgin,

There really is no issue. I just wanted people to be aware of this rule and its design implications. I understand the rule's intent, but its side effect is a really brutal constraint that I want to make sure people understand.

The other point is the metric dimension does not agree with the English dimension. That needs to be fixed.

Paul

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

You mean like this??


Generously drawn up & provided by Arthur Dutra IV from FRC 228.
So... what's the issue?

There just went most arm designs! That is what the issue is. Another year, another funny rule.