Climbing Mechanism Ideas

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by smclean1969

re: "I simply use a spring loaded a "jumping" mechanism that would catapult my robot towards the top rung. While in mid flight, the robot reaches out and briefly touches level 1 and 2 in that order, then grasps on to the top rung."

There are some tough challenges here. The amount of power required to have a 120 lb (150 lb w/battery and bumpers) robot 'jump' ~9' is ridiculous and extremely dangerous. The skill level required to do this and touch the levels and then grasp the top row is outrageously difficult. You're much better off just grabbing the bottom row and picking up an easy 10 points.

Is it more realistic and safer if my robot is 60 lbs including battery and bumper?

Anyways... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b4ZZQkcNEo

[RRLedford]

This year's rule limiting horizontal size AT ALL TIMES to staying within a 54" cylinder is very severe in light of the sloping nature of the climbing challenge.

How many people realize that if your robot is a cube of just over 31" on a side, then your diagonal is already at the 54" size limit.

So suppose that during climbing your robot flips around or swings some as it transitioning levels, well you better not have a very tall or wide robot, or you are going to have one of your diagonal dimensions exceed the 54" diameter limit.

We are thinking of having our robot lean over 30 degrees onto the pyramid corner, and establish a contact zone that bridges the dihedral angle, for extra stability as we transition the rungs, especially at the point where robot sits on only one rung while reaching for the next

However, we then realized that this 30 degrees of lean over will SEVERELY limit what our initial footprint can be.

Has your team taken this into consideration?
What is the longest DIAGONAL dimension of your robot going to be, and how will robot movements during climbing cause this dimension to GROW in the horizontal projection of its length?

There are going to be a lot of penalties for teams who overlook this.
I see people talking about deploying gripper arms to swing themselves upward, but I suspect that unless they are very small, they will exceed the 54" horizontal diameter limit.

Many other ideas being described are not taking this factor into consideration.

My own opinion is that with this games design, there should have been some horizontal expansion allowance for robots in contact with the pyramid.

-Dick Ledford

[Donut]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

How many people realize that if your robot is a cube of just over 31" on a side, then your diagonal is already at the 54" size limit.

Maybe I'm missing something here... when a 31" cube sits flat on the ground its diagonal dimension in the horizontal plane is ~44". Or are you referring to the fact that when this cube is rotated 45 degrees from the horizontal plane then its diagonal dimension is ~54" horizontally? Depending on your climbing method your robot may not ever rotate to 45 degrees, given that the pyramid is 60/68 degrees based on your approach.

The 54" rule certainly makes the challenge harder but I think a lot of designs could still be done if the mounting location of the climber is changed on the robot frame. Remember that your initial frame doesn't have to stay parallel to the ground while climbing.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Donut

Maybe I'm missing something here... when a 31" cube sits flat on the ground its diagonal dimension in the horizontal plane is ~44". Or are you referring to the fact that when this cube is rotated 45 degrees from the horizontal plane then its diagonal dimension is ~54" horizontally? Depending on your climbing method your robot may not ever rotate to 45 degrees, given that the pyramid is 60/68 degrees based on your approach.

The 54" rule certainly makes the challenge harder but I think a lot of designs could still be done if the mounting location of the climber is changed on the robot frame. Remember that your initial frame doesn't have to stay parallel to the ground while climbing.

I am referring to the cube's diagonal as being the segment going through 2 corners AND the CENTER of the cube, not the FACE diagonal going thru the center of any face.

Yes, if you can maintain proper orientation in the 54" cylinder, this can be handled, but robots tumbling out of controll are going to rack up plenty of technical fouls.

-Dick Ledford

[Donut]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

I am referring to the cube's diagonal as being the segment going through 2 corners AND the CENTER of the cube, not the FACE diagonal going thru the center of any face.

That makes more sense, I was looking too literally at how a robot might lean to get on the pyramid.

Robots tipping over are going to generate quite a few penalties this year. 30 point climbs will be huge match swings not only for the amount of points they score but for the penalty points they could cause if failed.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Donut

That makes more sense, I was looking too literally at how a robot might lean to get on the pyramid.

Robots tipping over are going to generate quite a few penalties this year. 30 point climbs will be huge match swings not only for the amount of points they score but for the penalty points they could cause if failed.

GDC has a fun definition of "continuously".

Originally Posted by Q89

Q. How long does a tipped robot have to right itself before it is assessed a TECHNICAL FOUL under G23? Is there anything a tipped robot can do to avoid a TECHNICAL FOUL? Is the TECHNICAL FOUL still assessed if a robot is tipped by the actions of an opposing team?
A. A tipped ROBOT will not be considered "continuously" breaking [G23]. Please see Team UPDATE 2013-01-11 in reference to your final question.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Donut

That makes more sense, I was looking too literally at how a robot might lean to get on the pyramid.

Robots tipping over are going to generate quite a few penalties this year. 30 point climbs will be huge match swings not only for the amount of points they score but for the penalty points they could cause if failed.

BTW, I forgot to emphasize that the BUMPERS must ALSO be counted as part of the 54" vertical cylinder diameter limit. This makes it really hard to climb by flipping or rolling, with out extending beyond the limit.

-Dick Ledford

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

I am referring to the cube's diagonal as being the segment going through 2 corners AND the CENTER of the cube, not the FACE diagonal going thru the center of any face.

Yes, if you can maintain proper orientation in the 54" cylinder, this can be handled, but robots tumbling out of controll are going to rack up plenty of technical fouls.

-Dick Ledford

To get a proper handle on what we were dealing with, we drew out on large, taped-together pieces of paper a 54" circle, a template of our robot frame plus bumpers, and a top-down view of one "zone" of the pyramid corner (post-bottom to knuckle-top).

We had more room than we thought, but less than we might want.

[RRLedford]

The flipping or "rolling" up the corner edge with alternating short grip arms is how we are prototyping to go up the pyramid. Our style of gripper will not need to squeeze hard or damage the power coated tubes. The angle formed by the intersecting horizontal tubes is how/where we will grip, avoiding the slope tube entirely.

We will be able to grasp next higher level BEFORE releasing from one below. We will not tip or swivel around laterally, because our grasp mechanism will bridge across the two intersecting horizontal tubes, yet avoid contacting the slope tube.

We will not drive; only shoot 2or 3 in autonomous. We may hoist others up, if we can keep hoist near enough to level rungs to have partner(s) bump them on the way up. They may have to extend some to snag our hook, since we can only lower it so much, but even if we only pull them up to the 20 pt. level, that is a nice bonus for a no driving bot to make.

The robot will be kind of vertically notched so it can straddle the corner edge tube at match start, allowing center of mass to be starting nearer to the initial gripping points.

-Dick Ledford

[April McShorty]

We had this amazing idea.. Then became stuck because of real estate