Robot climbing times

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by IKE

If we assume that the 4 seconds is a goal:
150 Lb robot = 667 N
60 Inch=1.5 meters estimated change in CG height
Time = 4 sec
667N*1.5m/4 sec = 250 Watts.

Assuming 50-75% efficient mechanism your power draw would be:
333-500 Watts.
That is a lot of power draw, but not unheard of.

Add in the use of hybrid mechanisms (use pneumatics, motors & constant-force springs through the use of creative cabling) and the instantaneous electrical power requirement is greatly reduced.

[TheOtherGuy]

Originally Posted by IKE

If we assume that the 4 seconds is a goal:
150 Lb robot = 667 N
60 Inch=1.5 meters estimated change in CG height
Time = 4 sec
667N*1.5m/4 sec = 250 Watts.

Assuming 50-75% efficient mechanism your power draw would be:
333-500 Watts.
That is a lot of power draw, but not unheard of.

I see that power all the time - in the drivetrain. Hmm...

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by IKE

If we assume that the 4 seconds is a goal:
150 Lb robot = 667 N
60 Inch=1.5 meters estimated change in CG height
Time = 4 sec
667N*1.5m/4 sec = 250 Watts.

Assuming 50-75% efficient mechanism your power draw would be:
333-500 Watts.
That is a lot of power draw, but not unheard of.

Actually I would be surprised if anyone climbing didn't try to keep their weight waaaaaaaayyyyy under the 120 limit. A fast, light weight, utility climber might be a solid partner in an alliance...

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by ENeyman

Most of the time, 341 would shoot the two preloads before getting the two from the bridge. However, when against another robot who went for the bridge in auton (27, 233), they would go to the bridge first, intentionally taking the penalty.

Also, 365 would take the additional ball in auton too.

To be clear, we always hoped not to take the penalty when we did this. A lot of the time, one or more balls would not happen to roll into our intake and we'd leave the bridge loaded with 3 balls. But sometimes all of them did. We were never carded for doing it, but on a couple of occasions people expressed some displeasure that we were setting up the bot to incur a foul.

What choice did we have though? Risk a 3 point penalty and then score 6 points with the extra ball (EV +3)? Or don't go for the bridge at all, and give our opponents 12 free points (EV -12)?

IMO, a game mechanic that makes it mathematically advantageous to just eat the penalty is (a) designed to be exploited and/or (b) poorly thought out.

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Like who?

Since we went off topic pretty quick. 341 did it and were IMO the best all around robot in 2012.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by mdituri

Last season (and I don't know if there was a similar rule off the top of my head about repeated violations) teams would use the strategy of taking a 3 point penalty in automomous to hold and score the extra basketball from the bridge. They were net +3 points. It wasn't considered to be an "intentional" rule violation, but a strategy. It wasn't malicious or damaging, which is what I think the yellow/red card rule applies. If someone intentionally broke the hitting people while in the protected zone rule every match, to cause them to misfeed, that could be considered intentional rule violation.

None of the competitions I watched or attended allowed this (then again, they may not have had it happen). I saw teams that shot the balls in their robot and then picked up additional balls afterwards, but that is not a rule violation. Regardless, last year's rulings have no bearing on this season's so I would not rely on that as an argument for why it should be legal. If a team is serious about this strategy I would ask the Q&A about it.

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

If you are successful you would be nuts to post this advantage until after build is done.

Indeed, a robot that could climb in 4 seconds for a guaranteed 30 points is an assured 1st pick if they aren't the top alliance captain. Most teams will have trouble lining up to hang from the bottom rung in 4 seconds!

I'm thinking more like 30 seconds to climb the top for an average climber. Most teams won't be able to climb so that still puts you in the 95th percentile

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

Our current textbook strategy allocates ~40s for "end game", which includes the time it takes to drive to the feeder station load 6 alliance discs, drive to the pyramid, climb it, and place them into the goal.

Similar idea, but we would rather carry 4. No risk of negative points if you miss a disk, plus you don't have to design for carrying 6, whereas the rest of the match you would be carrying 4 (assuming you are using the same mechanism for white and coloured disks, which may be a big assumption, but hey, what do I know?).

[ptkunapuli478]

Im assuming that you are accounting for the fact that you will be awarding the opposing alliance 6 points for carrying two more discs than the allotted 4

[z_beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by Mongai

I would really like some insight on that idea.

I'm sure we'll post after either a successful or a failed prototype.

[nuggetsyl]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

I'm sure we'll post after either a successful or a failed prototype.

If you are successful you would be nuts to post this advantage until after build is done.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Ok whats you guess on how long it will take to climb to the top of the tower?

Because of not only the need to be careful not to climb past two zones at once but also to be careful so not to have a catastrophic fall I say at the least it'll take a minute at best to make it to the top.

[pandamonium]

As long as it is under 2 minutes does time really matter?

Consistency... now that matters.

another factor is if the mechanism auto climbs or requires driver interaction.

4 seconds??? trolling???

[AndyBare]

Just going to speak my thoughts alloud, but I suppose that a robot with a drivetrain integrated to climbing up the corners could be super effective... like charzard fighting treeko

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by pandamonium

As long as it is under 2 minutes does time really matter?

Consistency... now that matters.

another factor is if the mechanism auto climbs or requires driver interaction.

4 seconds??? trolling???

Consistency absolutely matters, but time not spent climbing is time that can be spent scoring disks, transporting disks for an alliance partner, playing defense, or whatever else isn't related to climbing.

[45Auto]

For a CIM, stall torque is 21.5 in-lb

That is correct, for a CIM pulling 133 amps.

What kind of 40 amp circuit breakers are you using?