|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Opinion on the use of the FTC Kit for the Mini Bot | |||
| I like and agree with the use of Tetrix for the mini Bot. |
|
64 | 32.82% |
| I think the restriction to only use Tetrix is Unfair. |
|
131 | 67.18% |
| Voters: 195. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Mini Bot - displeasure
I am not sure that everyone has the proper perspective on this. The only Tetrix parts that are required are the battery (this has a 20A fuse in line) and the up to two motors. From team update #1 the allowable aluminum parts are:
Sheet 90 degree angle U channel Tube Bar So you are not forced to use the tetrix metal parts. Further you are allowed Polycarbonate, and any mechanical hardware you wish. so in the building materials respect the project is very similar to the way FRC was before about 2002. As for the innovation part of things, I see this like a race where every car has the same engine. You have a maximum amount of power available to you, just like all the others. However the chassis you put it in is up to you. Personally I think you will see a big difference between the teams that just build a mini bot with the tetrix system, and ones that do a lot of engineering on their mini bot. By a lot of engineering I mean using materials in a smart manner, using the design software given to the teams to lighten the bot. Choosing proper gear ratios to draw the maximum power from the motors as the robot climbs. I foresee the fastest bot being only the two motors, the battery, and a polycarbonate frame with custom polycarbonate gears and shafts that uses the household light switches for motor control. Think of this as an opportunity to show the students more involved engineering skills such as FEA and design optimization. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|