|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Our team meets at our school for kickoff, then we have a whole-team pre-strategy meeting, and then we split into strategy groups of 3 or 4 people each. These strategy groups discuss what they think the best strategy will be, and then we reconvene so that each group can present their chosen strategy to the whole team. Every person votes and makes comments on the aspects of each strategy, and a design comittee then meets to go over all of the papers and decides our strategy accordingly.
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Loads of problems this year...
Oy... this topic always hurts everybody on our team to talk about this year. We pride ourselves in being a think tank. We had a kickoff meeting the Tuesday after the game was announced, and conceptualized these awesome robots that could do everything but were so incredibly out of scale we laughed when we measured them. Our project manager, a senior this year, kept egging us on to tweak our designs a little bit, they weren't quite ready yet... until week 3. In the middle of week 3, he left for a ski trip and we never saw him in the build room again.
So yeah. In week 3 our team mom came in and saw us all looking dazed, still trying to conceive different designs with all sorts of permutations with ball grabbers/goal grabbers/ball-goal grabbers, etc. and no robot at all. She then gave us a quick speech on how much this event cost the team and what exactly she would do to us if a chassis was not on wheels moving around by the end of week 4. At that point, we scrapped design, went for the most effective idea we could manage (fast one-goal grabber with an unbreakable hold that is reliable and can move around the field with the greatest of ease), and built the darn thing. You can see the results of our hurried work.. the frame holding our electronics was assembled in less than 2 hours, so it always looks... kind of off. The previously 80 pound aluminum chassis has holes cut in it the size of a dinner plate or two combined. The only precision work on the robot would be the making of gearboxes for the Chiaphuas, which our engineer voluntarily toiled over for 20 hours straight with a lathe (those gears they send us are incredibly hard to machine, as most of you know). We always joke around by saying "When big name FIRST teams talk precision, they're talking around 1/1000th of an inch. When the Mech Techs talk precision, they're talking 'Oh, an inch or two should do'." Even though I joke, however, we still met the goals we set in week 3 on the field - we have a fast robot that, when attached to the goal, has a virtually unbreakable grip (for FIRST robot standards), and it's extremely reliable. <edit> If we were to do it again, I can easily tell you we would've been a ball collector grabbing at least one goal, because that was our original intention. </edit> |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Our head engineer has always designed our robot for finesse. This year is no different. He walked in on the first day and said "this year we are going to have all wheel turning, swerve drive" and so we do. We have two very strong goal grabbers but we don't use them because they just slow us down. Looking back, I can say that, yes, to win you need a double goal lift and spin robot like 469 and 60, and i could say that i want on of those robots, but i think that what we have this year is so much better than a beast of a robot that can't be moved, we have something new. And i would recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, stop by team 64's pits in orlando or watch a math cause it truly is nice.
|
|
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Good question
I still like the design of a good ball grabber combined with an awesome 1 goal grabber. This idea of a combo, or hybrid, robot will have an impact at the Championships. But... if we were to re-design our robot, I would like to have a larger ratio between high and low gear, along with a lower towing point.
But... there is a design that I've been thinking during the past week that would work pretty well. I'll try to explain it: It is a low-profile ramp-bot with two semi-detachable grabbers. All it has to do is this: ... let the opposition get two (or three) goals in their goal scoring zone ... get in the middle of the field and attach to two of the goals ... back up to our alliance's goal scoring zone, detaching our goal grabbers, but leaving them on cable tethers (sorta an entanglement hazard, but we'll take our chances here) ... put down some of those file card wire brush thingys onto the floor and make it so that we cannot move. ... invite our partner to get on top of us (adding to our ability to stay in this location) ... begin "winching" in the cables, drawing the two (or 3) goals to us. This would be a very powerful, low speed pull that no team would be able to resist. Well, maybe it would work. Even hindsight isn't that clear with this game. Andy B. ps... I totally agree with "GilaHumanPlayer"s comments. It was pretty amazing to see team 64 attain the #1 seed at LA without collecting a ball nor grabbing a goal. All they did was drive with extreme skill and conjure the best strategy I've seen this year. Watch out for 64... they know how to play this game. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Form follows function or vice versa?
Here goes...
We figured we had 3 choices: 1. Goal handler 2. Ball handler 3. Hybrid Now, I have to stress that we really wanted to have fun this year and make an impression. We built a 'bot for 01 that could do just about everything satisfactorily. It preformed well and held it's own, but it didn't have any flare. It was just like every other 'bot out there with a triangle shape and a gangly looking arm for balls. It was a fine 'bot, but it wasn't much fun to watch or drive. So, we looked at this game, looked at last years, and decided to do it differently. We decided we wanted to make the best ball vacuum in the game - bar none and look good at the same time. I think we did. As far as I know, it's still has the fastest 20 ball pick up time in the game. If it doesn’t, then I’d like to see the 'bot that does! But, if you put all that weight, design, testing, space etc. into everything needed to pick up 20 balls and put them in a goal in under 15 seconds, you give up capability like strong goal handling or a send home device. We decided that we would just play our strengths and let our allies cover our weaknesses (our lack of strong goal control). For the most part, it worked. Was it perfect? Of course not. We broke down, our allies broke down, the other alliance stole our goals, messed up the ball line or any number of things that could have and sometimes did go wrong for us. We knew from the start that using such a specialized design would limit us to what we could do if something unexpected happend. Of course, the unexpected happens and when it did it sometimes hurt us. Back in early January, the trade offs and risks seemed worthwhile. I think it still was the right choice for our team. In short: Why did we make the ‘bot the way we did? Because it was A. Fun B. Competitive C. Lot’s of fun. D. Whose going to forget the grasshopper gobbling up all the soccer balls? -Andy A. Edit: forgot to add what I would have changed! Well, I would have liked to see the atwoods still on the drive train, I think the extra pushing power would have helped us out. Also, we had a pair of air horns on the 'bot, fed off the compressor and triggerd on a solenoid. Some big goal bot blocking our way? Just beep the horns at him and he'll move! I just about died when I heard they where scrapped because of weight. If you've seen 95 run a line of balls, imagine that but with the 'bot screaming like a banshee the whole way. Then you'll know why I wanted them so bad. Last edited by Andy A. : 15-04-2002 at 00:58. |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I think our robot is the best one we have built untill today. We managed to both grab more than 10 balls and one goal. I'm pretty satisfied with it.
But, as the thread asks, if we would design the robot again, I think we should go for a transmission (for the first time) to be fast when collecting balls and strong when pulling goals (right now we are just fast). I would also suggest that we protect more our robot (an opponent broke our light's cover, and another one flipped one of our measure tapes). ------------------------------- the Gila Monsters have a really awesome robot! I was really proud when they won LA's regional. I felt as glad as if I had won. It seems they changed their strategy after the Pacific Northwest Regional, when we won partnered with two goal pushers.------------------------------- Andy's idea is awesome! That robot could use chiapuas to walk around and three drill motors to pull the goals, and it would certainly receive some awards. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How much planning goes into your robot? | Jnadke | General Forum | 41 | 29-01-2006 21:29 |
| serious problem found - robot controller resets when jarred! | KenWittlief | Electrical | 23 | 19-03-2003 13:30 |
| WASH Palm scouting at the Championship | Mike Soukup | Scouting | 2 | 19-04-2002 15:14 |
| Index of team's post about their robot... | Ken Leung | Robot Showcase | 1 | 20-03-2002 17:10 |
| about how Drive Train push the robot... shouldn't the force accelerate the robot? | Ken Leung | Technical Discussion | 12 | 26-11-2001 09:39 |