20-01-2009 07:45

Pjohn1959

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

So, no ground pick up this year?

20-01-2009 12:40

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

its not in our strategy, but keep in mind this is just the frame. (waterjet cutters are awesome)

20-01-2009 14:37

chewy

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

How much does that weigh as pictured?

It looks pretty light...

20-01-2009 15:14

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

How thick is the side rails of your frame?
With a lot of unanswered questions about the sides attached to bumpers and the cantilevered wheel questions, would that pass inspection?
The fact that the side rails are also lightened based on your cutouts, would that meet the bumper attachment rules?
My concern is that we have been discussing such options, but haven't figured whether it would pass or not.

20-01-2009 16:33

whosdadog

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

its weighs 21.4 lbs.

20-01-2009 16:35

whosdadog

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

we are planing on attaching the bumpers on the side rails, and the front and back bumpers on the front and back rails, which have a 3/4 inch top and bottom for the bumpers. the wheels are not cantelevered, we just have not cut the axles back yet.

20-01-2009 17:59

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

also the rails are made from 1/8" 5052 alloy

20-01-2009 18:02

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I would check with the GDC committee, as it may help answer questions for a lot of other teams.
The fact that your cutouts are "open spaces" which does not provide backing to the bumpers may be an issue. We would like to know the answer also.

The reason why we haven't submitted a question similar (with a diagram), is because we dont have a frame yet. The GDC committee already stated that 1/8" rails are not strong enough, and thus, wont be allowed either.

20-01-2009 18:09

sdcantrell56

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I surely hope the GDC is not referring to 1/8" aluminum when used like this. This frame design is plenty strong enough and will not cause the robot to fail. That would be utterly absurd for the GDC to tell us that now we must build our frame out of 3/16" or 1/4" aluminum plate stock and that we also can't lighten the material.

20-01-2009 18:19

jgannon

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Glenn, I think you're grossly oversimplifying the Q&A response you're alluding to.
There's miles of difference between "one particular implementation of 1/8-inch plate on standoffs may not be allowed" and "nothing made of 1/8-inch aluminum will be allowed".

20-01-2009 18:27

Zultraranger

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

So who constructed your chassis, Motorola?

20-01-2009 18:28

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

That may be true, however, after reading Dave's response to Cory, I would interpret it as such.
Dont get me wrong, I love this chassis.
The worst part is doing all of this work, and it not passing inspection. It doesnt hurt to ask the GDC. If they say its OK, it will help alleviate possible questions that other teams may have about similar setups.
I truly believe that this chasis will withstand any situations during the competitions this season, but its not a matter of opinion, its what's written in black and white.

Specifically, we wanted to put a thick solid plate on every section that a bumper is to be attached, except small portions where our wheels were (to allow easy access for changing them-cantilevered).

20-01-2009 18:29

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I would find it very hard to believe that this would not be allowed, especaily because its flanged.

20-01-2009 18:32

sdcantrell56

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

What is this supposed to mean?

20-01-2009 18:34

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

our design team drew it up and one of our sponsors Harris and Bruno Intl. fabricated the drawings.

20-01-2009 18:39

jgannon

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

You've uncovered a bit of a problem in the communication stream. Dave's posts may provide insight into the (twisted) mind of one part of the GDC, but officially they don't count for anything, and relying on them is foolhardy at best. On the other hand, history tells me I'm safe betting a box of Krispy Kremes that posting this picture to the Q&A with the question "will this satisfy <R08-M>?" won't get a reply any more insightful than "we can't comment on specific designs without a full investigation, so we leave it up to the lead inspector at your event".

I definitely encourage the team to try asking, but when you say:
...what we've seen so far indicates to me that, in fact, that's what it's going to come down to.

20-01-2009 18:44

AdamHeard

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I don't think it's fair of you to criticize Glenn for being overly cautious in his interpretation of the GDC and Dave's words. With the bumpers rules and clarifications so far this year, I think it'd be wise to stand by "Never bitten, twice shy" (had to modify it a bit for us).

20-01-2009 18:53

jgannon

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

It certainly wasn't my intention to criticize Glenn, and I would apologize to him if that's how I came off. Being particularly cautious seems to be the ticket to success this season. My point is that there hasn't been any official word that "1/8-inch rails won't be allowed", and spreading it as fact has the potential to cause heartache to other teams.

20-01-2009 18:55

Zultraranger

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

when you say draw, do you mean a rough sketch?

20-01-2009 18:59

sdcantrell56

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I'm sure they mean draw as in design in CAD. We do the same thing and we design the entire robot in CAD and then export our drawings for our sponsors to fabricate the parts using their CNC machines

20-01-2009 18:59

EricH

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

If the drawings were fabricated, it means that they were most likely full-on machining drawings.

If you turn this thread into a "mentor/sponsor-built vs. student built", then be warned: bad things happen.

20-01-2009 18:59

AdamHeard

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

They probably drew it in a CAD program and gave the files to the sponsors to fabricate.

What does your comment about Motorola mean? Are you referring to 111?

20-01-2009 19:06

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Dont worry guys, its all good!
Part of my comment was to encourage team(s) to post more questions for clarification.
Everytime, we think we made a good enough accomodation to meet the rules, another post comes out that makes us question our frame idea.

This is why we haven't committed to a final design yet and instead have been working on our "Z-axis mechanism."

**Remember what happened last season with all of these inspectors not knowing game and robot rules. The questions, headaches, and different interpretations is sure to make headlines again this season.**

20-01-2009 19:08

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

not a rough sketch a mechanicle drawing on autocad. they did nothing but give us a little machine time.

20-01-2009 20:30

Zultraranger

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Eric, what if I am turning this into a sponsor-built vs. student built argument, I laugh at your empty threats.

20-01-2009 20:34

sdcantrell56

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Honestly if you want to discuss student versus sponsor manufactured robots and the inner workings of individual teams post it in another thread already talking about it. This isn't the place to do it. Plus every team is different and as such you cannot determine what is the right way to set up another team.

20-01-2009 20:36

EricH

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

1) Every thread on that topic has been closed or moderated to date.
2) At least half the long-time veterans can give a lot of negative reputation--and they may or may not choose to use it.
3) It's off-topic. If you want to have that debate (again), please start a new thread. That way the rest of us can constructively critique a frame instead of debating with those who want to.

On to the frame: are you only going with a 2WD, or will there be chain runs (or magic) to other wheels?

20-01-2009 20:37

Zultraranger

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Your checklist is cute.
Alright, to the PMs we go!

20-01-2009 23:12

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

the drivetrain is 4WD the back wheels are direct driven with chains running up to the front. It should be a pretty awesome machine, once we have the scoring mechinisms fabricated and attached. to be honest we are still prototyping some things.

20-01-2009 23:17

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

EricH I think that zultraranger is just jelous of 295s chassis

20-01-2009 23:19

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Lol, I am.

Lookin really good.

20-01-2009 23:25

Ian Curtis

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Nice chassis guys! Do the rear axles extend beyond the frame? If so, why?

On a side note, I was pretty surprised that the GDC responded to the 1/8th flat bar question. It seems like that has the potential to open up a whole new can of interpretation worms.

Pssst... Can we ignore these Zultraranger comments? If the thread gets dragged in that direction it might get locked, and it's such a nice frame!

20-01-2009 23:36

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

the axles do not extend beyond the outside rail in real life, they will be anglegrinded down tomorow. we are currently waiting on the GDCs ruling, on the legality of this setup. we have some solutions to fix it, however they require a little more waterjet time, so we will see.

20-01-2009 23:57

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

That would be very useful for you to post that info.
It will definitely steer other teams in the right direction.

21-01-2009 00:14

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

what information do you mean, the way we plan to make our chassis useful? we plan on holding it on with some struts.

21-01-2009 07:09

Tom Line

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I believe he's asking where/what facility the beautiful machining work was done.

21-01-2009 09:35

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Harris & Bruno Intl. is the sponsor/machine shop that helped our team through the CACT program.

21-01-2009 21:54

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

so we are awaitng the GDCs ruling, we have submitted our question, regaurding our chassis legality

21-01-2009 22:08

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Hope they provide an answer and accept it as a legal chassis.

After a lot of articulation and debates, our team already started working on a solid rectangular tube backing today with provisions to remove easily.
Thus, our cantilevered wheels will be easy access for repair/replacement.

25-01-2009 02:10

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

as of the last team update I believe that our chassis will be legal, just in case we will have some new plates milled from a metric sheet we have, that is like just a little more then 1/8th. because it will be the same as 1/8, but its not.

also now that we have both of our twins driving it is really interesting how well they drive with trailers, our tank drive is long but the front wheals do not stick out as far as the back, which really improves our turning. we were drifting and everything. I am not sure why but it drives much better then the 2007 robot on regolith. but I think it has to do with the differnce in axle lenghtes from front to back

25-01-2009 14:48

spc295

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

from the gdc last answer i think we are in the clear

26-01-2009 09:35

Jared Russell

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

I'm not sure why any rulings on bumper backings were ever necessary on the GDC's part. They made it abundantly clear that there would be high-speed collisions this season. A damaged frame seems to be a fair price for not heeding their warning.

And I agree with the posters here that the frame pictured should be able to withstand anything another robot can throw at it this year.

31-01-2009 17:15

Sean Raia

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Cool chassis, i don't want to get this thread locked but it would have been cool if the chassis had been built by the kids not just drawn by them.

If everyone bought a chassis, FIRST wouldn't be the same.

31-01-2009 17:20

waialua359

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Have you watched kickoff?
Dave made it pretty clear on the importance of having mentors.
I also dont think its clear cut and dry on who does the work for any team.
I'm sure teams in general try to incorporate as much student ownership as possible.

31-01-2009 17:22

Brandon Holley

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Don't you think the wise decision would then be to not make that comment in THIS thread and either PM the person you are directing your comment at, or start a new thread to talk about that specific topic??


Anyways,
Love the chassis 295...they look really nice

31-01-2009 17:49

Cory

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

A friendly reminder from the CD moderator crew:

Confine discussion in this thread to the topic at hand-295's frame. Not who built 295's frame, or whether it's good or bad that it was done that way.

If you wish to address that topic, search the forums for other threads which exist for that purpose.

31-01-2009 19:21

sdcantrell56

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

Plus this is an exact representation of industry. Many companies do not have the machinery to fabricate many of their products, and as such, the company must contract out to a fab shop to have their parts created. We do the exact same thing and I don't see how having a shop laser cut parts that the students design that could not be manufactured any other way is against the beliefs of FIRST. The purpose of FIRST is to inspire students to go into science and engineering fields and having someone fabricate parts in no way diminishes this aspect.

01-02-2009 12:01

GaryVoshol

Re: pic: 295 chassis 1/19/09

So I guess you think there should be no kit of parts? After all, someone is buying all that stuff for the teams, they're not building it themselves. (And sorry for dragging this thread off-topic again.)