Wide vs. Tall

[Knufire]

Why not square?

[dmorewood]

Originally Posted by Dan Waxman

As of right now, we've decided on the 36" tall, but that's subject to change. We think it will be easier to package a nice shooter that's harder to block in those dimensions, and a climb might be easier to execute since you have to traverse one foot less. That's all subject to change though, depending on what the conscientious is after prototyping.

Do you think there's going to be a lot of blocked shots this year? The trajectory to hit the goal is almost straight up in the air so I would be surprised if anyone was able to make an effective shot blocker.

[Joe Wilson]

Remember that the field side openings of the hoppers and loading stations are ~1" over 2 ft off the carpet. Anyone using open-topped ball storage will have to use the wide dimensions if they want fuel to be able to just be dumped in.

[Thayer McCollum]

We went with the short configuration because the feeder slots, low goal, and gear spikes are all less then or close to 2 ft. of the ground. So because our strategy used minimal fuel we wouldn't have been using the extra foot of height for ball storage. We couldn't come up with anything we would put above the 2 ft. mark so short it is.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Why not square?

R03. I guess you could be small enough to fit both sets of criteria.

Haven't decided yet, but more likely tall. Our gear retriever would benefit from us being able to go a bit over 2'. One of our stretch goals is to be able to gather fuel and dump them either into the low goal or (better) into an alliance partner shooter emulating a hopper, which means we'd need to be over 2' tall. Being tall doesn't hurt the climb, either.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by ldsedam

I feel like it is easier to make a bot that can hold more fuel with the tall bot.

Not so fast. (Removing 7" from length and width to account for bumpers and 6" from height for drive train/electrical)

29x33x18= 17,226 in3
23x25x30= 17,250 in3

They are the same.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

Not so fast. (Removing 7" from length and width to account for bumpers and 6" from height for drive train/electrical)

29x33x18= 17,226 in3
23x25x30= 17,250 in3

They are the same.

dont need to subtract from the height but yes they are equivalent.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

dont need to subtract from the height but yes they are equivalent.

Actually you do:

a) drive train / electrical has to go somewhere, so including them would be inaccurate

b) each vertical inch for the wide base robot nets more volume than the tall robot, so the 6 inches hurts the short robot more.

[Jonny_Jee]

For my team, the robot configuration is dependent on strategy. If they wanted to pick up gears/dump fuel, then the taller configuration is advantageous. If shooting in the high goal is what they end up wanting to do, there are more mechanisms requiring more volume in the robot, so wide would seem advantageous.

Important things to consider for either design:
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
Don't forget about space for electronics, battery, and pneumatics. How is accessibility impacted.
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
would you like to be able to extend past your bumpers? perhaps for intake
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
.
.
.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

Actually you do:

a) drive train / electrical has to go somewhere, so including them would be inaccurate

b) each vertical inch for the wide base robot nets more volume than the tall robot, so the 6 inches hurts the short robot more.

Obviously you're not going to get the whole robot volume as a hopper. They were calculating the volume difference between the 2 orientations when accounting for bumpers. Subtracting from the height didn't do anything to show one was more than the other, it just confuses people because they will see 18 and 30 and not 24 and 36.

We don't need to add confusion to this by arbitrarily picking different dimensions than what is given in the rule book "because the drive train and electronics have to go somewhere".

[Valkonn]

We're going with the wide volume in order to have more room for a floor intake. With a 27.25x29.25 wide bot we can get some decent extension from an intake.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

...Subtracting from the height didn't do anything to show one was more than the other, it just confuses people because they will see 18 and 30 and not 24 and 36.

We don't need to add confusion to this by arbitrarily picking different dimensions than what is given in the rule book "because the drive train and electronics have to go somewhere".

Ok; we'll do it your way.

29x33x24= 22,968 in3 = 13.29 ft3
23x25x36= 20,700 in3 = 11.98 ft3

Now they're different. Subtracting the drive train matters.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by Joe Wilson

Remember that the field side openings of the hoppers and loading stations are ~1" over 2 ft off the carpet. Anyone using open-topped ball storage will have to use the wide dimensions if they want fuel to be able to just be dumped in.

You could use the tall dimensions and still be short, or you could have a open slot in the side to allow the balls to be dumped in, while still placing other mechanisms above the 2 ft level.

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

Ok; we'll do it your way.

29x33x24= 22,968 in3 = 13.29 ft3
23x25x36= 20,700 in3 = 11.98 ft3

Now they're different. Subtracting the drive train matters.

Yes, which is why you shouldn't subtract it. One configuration provides extra volume between the drive components. Using this volume wisely can allow for more ball storage in the volume above the drive train.