WCP MCC Robot 2016 powered by VEXpro!

[R.C.]

Hi Teams,



We are thrilled to announce our 2016 MCC Robot powered by VEXpro!

Related information is available here: http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016

Notes/Disclaimers:

• The reversing of the balls over the obstacles is illegal, it is shown in the video for good fun!
• The hanger was done to show what can be done with COTS parts, we encourage teams to improve upon it and make it more visibly legal

Special thanks to Gary Chahal, Andrew Nabors, Elias Avila and Andrew Lawrence for helping out with this project.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by R.C.

Hi Teams,



We are thrilled to announce our 2016 MCC Robot powered by VEXpro!

Related information is available here: http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016

Notes/Disclaimers:

• The reversing of the balls over the obstacles is illegal, it is shown in the video for good fun!
• The hanger was done to show what can be done with COTS parts, we encourage teams to improve upon it and make it more visibly legal

Special thanks to Gary Chahal, Andrew Nabors, Elias Avila and Andrew Lawrence for helping out with this project.

Hella.

[Lil' Lavery]

Looks oddly familiar...

[nuclearnerd]

Very nice design. Definitely a worthy contender. I especially like how the rotation manages to stay within the frame perimeter extension rules during the scale.

Unfortunately the CAD links are broken, otherwise I'd love to dig into it more.

[JackFisher]

Build season done

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

Very nice design. Definitely a worthy contender. I especially like how the rotation manages to stay within the frame perimeter extension rules during the scale.

Unfortunately the CAD links are broken, otherwise I'd love to dig into it more.

Try again! I did goof.

[Knufire]

This looks really similar to our robot...guess we're doing something right. Might steal a few tricks though.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

Very nice design. Definitely a worthy contender. I especially like how the rotation manages to stay within the frame perimeter extension rules during the scale.

Unfortunately the CAD links are broken, otherwise I'd love to dig into it more.

Does it stay in? That sure looks way over 15" to me off the back/top of the robot.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

All this misinformation is actually making me post (well, my friend who runs this account is posting for me, but still) - climb is legal within 1/4". It's really pushing it, but it fits, so y'all should stop saying it doesn't. We suggest teams develop a better way to make it clearer that it's legal with their own methods.

-Andrew Lawrence

It's also worth mentioning that most of the "extending outside the 15" perimeter" Issues will be dealt with during inspection. The only time I've ever seen it called on the field in prior years is when a robot is "flailing" something obviously outside the frame. These +/- a few inches calls during scaling won't be made by the referee crew because it's not realistic for them to see when a robot is 16" outside of it's frame for a split second during a fast climb.

This is why I expected a change to G18 during scaling. Every one said it's supposed to be hard and things like that but for me it came down to can it be called easily be the referee and/or checked during inspection. The answer to both of these questions is no. And rules you cannot enforce should not be rules.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

It's also worth mentioning that most of the "extending outside the 15" perimeter" Issues will be dealt with during inspection. The only time I've ever seen it called on the field in prior years is when a robot is "flailing" something obviously outside the frame. These +/- a few inches calls during scaling won't be made by the referee crew because it's not realistic for them to see when a robot is 16" outside of it's frame for a split second during a fast climb.

This is why I expected a change to G18 during scaling. Every one said it's supposed to be hard and things like that but for me it came down to can it be called easily be the referee and/or checked during inspection. The answer to both of these questions is no. And rules you cannot enforce should not be rules.

That doesn't mean you should knowingly break the rule and hide it in inspection. I've seen teams do this in the past and got a hint of that from your post. Teams should never look at this as a viable solution to play the game.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

That doesn't mean you should knowingly break the rule and hide it in inspection. I've seen teams do this in the past and got a hint of that from your post. Teams should never look at this as a viable solution to play the game.

How do you get that? It should be on the team and the inspector to clearly cover the way robot mechanisms perform before it even gets to the field. Referees don't test for steroids in Major League Baseball.

Just feels needlessly accusatory.

[MrBasse]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

How do you get that? It should be on the team and the inspector to clearly cover the way robot mechanisms perform before it even gets to the field. Referees don't test for steroids in Major League Baseball.

Just feels needlessly accusatory.

Nothing accusatory, unless there are some concerns from the one doing the reading. I'm sure that you have seen others skirt the rules in the past, as Im sure Justin probably has. Whether it be here or in any other part of life, having something that follows the rules when inspected closely and then abandons them when there us no clear way to catch a violation is wrong. Volkswagen comes to mind, as does recent Mini Cooper crash testing issues.

When I said that I didn't mean to imply that he had cheated in the past or was saying it was okay to do so. But if rookie teams or veteran teams with a lot of fresh membership read something written as it was, they might assume that as long as you pass inspection you can do whatever you want since there is no way to enforce it. I have seen it in the past with rookies and even some well respected veteran teams.

I just want to be sure that everyone stays on the right side of the rules to keep things the way they should be.

[kyle_hamblett]

Great concept. Was it just me or did I see something that seemed to resemble a Poofs bot in the background?

[DRow]

Originally Posted by kyle_hamblett

Great concept. Was it just me or did I see something that seemed to resemble a Poofs bot in the background?

Looks more like a 1323 robot to me.

[JesseK]

We tested 6" wheels in a mock setup but found that the 2" clearance scrapes the rough terrain in some cases. For a WCP gearbox setup, this means that the transmission plates/gears themselves may take a beating in the long term. Remember, the WCP gearboxes stick down below the frame quite a bit.

For this reason we added 1x1x1/16" 'skid rails' for the entire rear half of the robot, where our WCP DS gearboxes live (non-direct drive due to 8" wheels). This testing has performed really well no matter how we throw it at the rough terrain.

How does this MCC cope with the rough terrain clearance in the long-term? It's a question for the general forum to come up with an answer rather than a criticism of the design - I suspect chains, belts and gearboxes alike will need a solution.