Fastest FRC Robot?

[Damiaen_Florian]

I couldn't find a thread post anywhere discussing this so I was wondering, to the best of everyone's knowledge, what was the fastest robot in FRC History? If you're aware of the robots FPS or any other interesting features about their drivetrain then please feel free to list them, thanks!

My current guess would be 148 in 2008 but I'm not entirely sure.

[thatprogrammer]

Team 102 was capable of going 27 fps in 2008, of course, they couldn't actually reach that speed on the FRC field.

[Mk.32]

254 in 2011? Was underweight and geared for 21FPS? If i remember.

[AdamHeard]

Our minibot on a horizontal surface

[Mike Marandola]

Citrus Circuits were geared for 22 fps this year.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by Mike Marandola

Citrus Circuits were geared for 22 fps this year.

There is Geared and Actual FPS. We only could hit 17-18 FPS on field(we measured this). Our 22 FPS was our theoretical top speed.

I vote that this thread reports Actual FPS as measured on the field, not what the gearbox was "capable" of.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by thatprogrammer

Team 102 was capable of going 27 fps in 2008, of course, they couldn't actually reach that speed on the FRC field.

My old now defunct team was geared and could hit 28 fps in 08. A 25 lb robot before batteries helps that a lot. 7 second laps for the win. Unfortunately, due to internal team politics, our team never went to competition with that robot.

[Tyler2517]

Originally Posted by donkehote

My old now defunct team was geared and could hit 28 fps in 08. A 25 lb robot before batteries helps that a lot. 7 second laps for the win. Unfortunately, due to internal team politics, our team never went to competition with that robot.

I do not think i have the mental capability to drive something with that much acceleration.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by Tyler2517

I do not think i have the mental capability to drive something with that much acceleration.

It was surprisingly easy to drive. It had a double stacked omni on the front to turn. We drove forward on the small wheels, and turned when we rotated the wheel. we originally had Ackerman steering, but it never returned to center 100%. Using the omni, straight was straight. The rear axle was solid, but turning lifted the inside wheel, just like in a go-kart, so drag losses while turning were limited. It was a lot of fun to drive.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by donkehote

It was surprisingly easy to drive. It had a double stacked omni on the front to turn. We drove forward on the small wheels, and turned when we rotated the wheel. we originally had Ackerman steering, but it never returned to center 100%. Using the omni, straight was straight. The rear axle was solid, but turning lifted the inside wheel, just like in a go-kart, so drag losses while turning were limited. It was a lot of fun to drive.

Did you incorporate any sensor feedback (e.g. gyros, encoders) to help the driver?

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by inkling16

Did you incorporate any sensor feedback (e.g. gyros, encoders) to help the driver?

We only had an array of ping sensors looking forward, and to the sides for auto.
it drove laps autonomously in auto with obstructions, but again, it never made it to comp, so I never got to see how well that would have worked in real competition.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

There is Geared and Actual FPS. We only could hit 17-18 FPS on field(we measured this). Our 22 FPS was our theoretical top speed.

I vote that this thread reports Actual FPS as measured on the field, not what the gearbox was "capable" of.

I've always been annoyed when people say "Geared for [XX]". Is that according to the JVN spreadsheet? or is that actually measured? Simulated another way?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Is that according to the JVN spreadsheet?

And if so, what value did you use for the "speed loss constant" fudge factor?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I've always been annoyed when people say "Geared for [XX]". Is that according to the JVN spreadsheet? or is that actually measured? Simulated another way?

When teams are comparing theoretical speeds, I think it makes sense to sense to use "geared for" assuming that means free speed. This way frictional estimates don't affect the number. This is essentially the rollout ratio times a CIMs free speed.

Any other number I think is only valid if actually measured, or from a team that has measured several of their similar drives and has decent enough friction parameters to estimate future drives.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Any other number I think is only valid if actually measured, or from a team that has measured several of their similar drives and has decent enough friction parameters to estimate future drives.

Quoted for truth.