pic: FTC3231 - Syzygy

[Kpchem]

If I may ask, how does that grasp the rings? My first guess is that the mechanism on the end of the arm actuates like a claw, but I can't see where the joints for that would be...

No matter what, that's a very good looking robot, and I hope to be able to see it in competition!

[Akash Rastogi]

That's a sweet looking little robot. Do you have any videos?

[Nick Lawrence]

This is a work of art. Well done guys!

-Nick

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

That's a sweet looking little robot. Do you have any videos?

I would love to see a video as well! Our robot looks like it is from the junkyard compared to your robot!

Looks like we have some work to do.

[Madison]

No video yet; my phone's battery was dead last night. If I can make it to our first matches tonight, I'll grab some video and put it up on our FRC team's YouTube channel.

It works like you might expect; a simple-four bar (driven by a 67-esque lower four-bar) raises to the rings to any of the three scoring heights. It has PID control on the arm and drive for positioning.

The manipulator isn't a claw; it's more of a bucket. It slides up into the rings from below and pulls them away from the pegs to load. It can rotate forward to dump rings onto the pegs.

[BrendanB]

Beautiful robot!

[MattC9]

Do I see a double 4 bar; like 67 in '07 and 148 in '11?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by MattC9

Do I see a double 4 bar; like 67 in '07 and 148 in '11?

Seems like it.

Its a 4-bar 4-barring a 4-bar

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Seems like it.

Its a 4-bar 4-barring a 4-bar

Technically...it's a 6 bar (4-bar with a driver dyad).

Love the lighting, does it serve a particular purpose other than looking cool?

Looking forward to seeing video of this sexy beast.

[Madison]

Yes -- the arm is a 6-bar like those used by 67 and 148 in the past.

I wasn't able to make it to the first league match on Friday night -- I didn't get done with work until they were nearly finished -- so I couldn't get any video. They are 6-0-0 at the moment with a high score of 240 pts., though, if that means anything useful.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Slickest FTC robot I've ever seen, can't wait to see a video of it in action!

With the new material allowances, hopefully we will see teams move in this direction and see more robots that look like mini-FRC quality robots.

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

Slickest FTC robot I've ever seen, can't wait to see a video of it in action!

With the new material allowances, hopefully we will see teams move in this direction and see more robots that look like mini-FRC quality robots.

While I think it's awesome to see what the new rules allow for, and this robot is definitely impressive and a clear indicator of what can be done, I fear that it may result in a resource race that separates the haves from the have not further. One of the cool things I really liked about FTC/FLL is that the teams are required to all build from the exact same parts.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

So are the FTC rules only sliiiightly more restrictive than the FRC rules now?

Sometimes I feel like FTC is just going to replace FRC in popularity...

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by jwfoss

While I think it's awesome to see what the new rules allow for, and this robot is definitely impressive and a clear indicator of what can be done, I fear that it may result in a resource race that separates the haves from the have not further. One of the cool things I really liked about FTC/FLL is that the teams are required to all build from the exact same parts.

On the contrary, I believe the FTC rules allow more creativity while trading the TETRIX money sink for a Tools money sink where materials are concerned. This is due to the fact that TETRIX metal (and even VEX metal, to an extent) is so much more expensive than plain metal purchased in bulk. That's a better investment for long-term sustainability of both the team and the program, IMO.

Student learning in FTC/FVC has always been about "which team(s) can do the most for a set of problems". Teams who actively seek thousands of dollars in sponsorship for the robot are, and will always be, at a clear advantage to those which accept whatever sponsorship comes their way, regardless of whether a strict set of materials are used instead of open-ended materials.

Additionally, the open-ended materials will better encourage industry mentorship. (Anecdotal) I very much disliked mentoring VEX/FTC in '07/'08-'08/'09 due to the 'puzzle piece' nature of the competitions (yes I mentored both those years). The kids didn't know any better -- but I did, and having to learn ways to bang/cut/twist the puzzle pieces into submission was like pulling teeth when compared to the ability to design from scratch.

The Syzygy Bot exemplifies it all, and with great success it seems. I love the passive grip mechanism; the consultations with my FTC students have been somewhat fruitless in this regard. Perhaps the pictures/videos will push them over the edge to do it (because their complex designs still aren't finished 2 weeks before competition...).