Team Update #1

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.

I guarantee someone has already designed the best minibot this year. It will be something that other teams couldn't get to work or thought of but tossed the idea aside as impractical.

Please see my post above about physics. The fundamental issue here is that we're given exactly one method of converting stored electrical energy into mechanical energy. This method limits you to, at most, 16.8W of mechanical power. This gives you a hard and definite limit of just how fast you can lift X lbs to Y inches. If the GDC allows minibots to expand or detach parts, then there's discussion to be had on whether to fire up something light, or drag the entire minibot up the pole.

It looks pretty certain that the GDC ISN'T going to allow expanding minbots or detachable parts, so your only option is to haul the entire minibot up the pole. So you know right away the you're hauling 2 motors and a battery up the pole, and you want to absolutely minimize any wasted energy. You want every last erg you can get to go into lifting the bot. It really, really focuses your design.

What about the bot that spins around the pole as it goes up? Nope, all that rotational kinetic energy is a waste. Big honkin' wheels? Nope, more wasted rotational energy. Lots and lots of gears? And waste all that energy in friction in the bushings? Umm... maybe a flag to wave around at the top? Nope, don't have the grams to spare. These constraints pin you down to the absolute bare minimum necessary to get the job done. The most successful minibots will have the minimum necessary wiring, maybe one gear step up (yes, up), a battery, and the lightest frame possible. The only real question open to you is how you latch the minibot onto the pole as quickly and high as possible, within these other constraints.

So it's not the fun, crazy, creative kind of engineering we get to do on the rest of the robot. It's the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering that's rather less popular, but rather more common.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

...the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering ...

... is the kind that really matters.

It's the way we get to things that really work, really well, for a really long time. (Must think of some examples...)

Ah, here's one: Dave's other car.

[wilsonmw04]

As a teacher of conceptual, standard and AP Physics, I understand the principles behind most mechanical processes. I stand by my statement that you are already limiting yourself in your approach.

have anyone thought about this?:

<G59> TEAMS must retrieve MINIBOTS from the TOWER quickly and safely after each MATCH. Violation: The FIELD crew will retrieve the MINIBOT if the TEAM does not. A second violation may result in a YELLOW CARD.

Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

You do realize that we have a several hundred dollar control system in charge of the robot, right? Give yourself a deployment arming button and start a timer as soon as the robot enters enabled teleop. If you're armed and the timer hits 110 seconds, fire the minibot. If you're depending on your driver's reflexes, you're wasting valuable time.

Kevin,

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe that in past seasons there have been up to several seconds of variation in match length during FRC Regional matches.

Talk to a few folks (some FTAs maybe?) who can confirm or deny my fuzzy suspicion before putting too much faith in being able to legally deploy the mini-bots exactly 110 seconds after your robot reports (to itself) the match has been started.

Blake

[Nemisis]

I'm very excited about the 84'!! however i'm not as joyful bout the minibot ideas... this is going to hinder design work just a bit... should still be interesting thou!

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by JesseK

The only thing that really NEEDS to be TETRIX on the minibot are the battery, motors and wheels.

(emphasis mine) I'm not so sure that <R92> states that I cannot fabricate my own wheels from aluminum sheet and tube (for example). Just sayin'

Originally Posted by SteveGPage

Getting frustrated, he yelled, <snip>

It may have helped that the entire contraption was built by the lowest bidder...

Originally Posted by sanddrag

With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept.

Exactly. So which team will be able to wring the most from their pinewood derby car minibot? The team that understands the design constraints best. Maybe it IS a competition to see who sucks least, but I for one welcome the opportunity to blow your doors off.

Bring it on.


.

[Nemisis]

Good luck with that Sir! Team 2389 is in full swing and is working nonstop to make this year the absolute Best!

[skimoose]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

have anyone thought about this?:

Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?

Absolutely, this is not an engineering challenge.

I can easily think of several ways to get a bare bones bot off the pole safely in less than 30 seconds (and they don't involve a stick chainsaw as Dean demonstrated). After all, we're planning a sub-one second deployment. Why should it take up to a minute to retrieve the little critter?

[Boydean]

I find this new contraint quite enjoyable. Then again, I'm not on a team.

There has always been talk from year to year about "standardizing" certain parts of the robot across teams to allow them to be able to be switched out at competitions. I think FIRST just laid a golden egg right in your lap to do something like this and make it actually happen (in fact, they are encouraging it).

Forget about the "lack of innovation" that has come from this rule, and think about how fun it'll be brainstorming with other teams in the pit to get their minibot to work with your hostbot.

Just my two cents.

[Nemisis]

I must agree!

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Nemisis

I must agree!

...with?

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by EricH

Mods, could this thread be given a 24-hour cooldown? I think we all need a break.

I second this request. Hopefully this gets people to stop complaining and start working on their teams bots.

[Steve W]

I was thinking the same thing. 24 hour rest. Reopening tomorrow evening.

[548swimmer]

Even with the massive constraints placed on the minibot design, it will still be difficult to create a final product that attaches to the pole, and has enough traction to adequately grip the pole. It's still going to be exciting to see which teams come up with novel ways to increase traction, novel methods of attachment, and creative ways to lighten the whole system.

[bassoondude]

Doesn't the blue box under section 4.13.15 technically allow an FTC team who is not registered for the competition to win the coopertition award?