|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
20-03-2010 23:09
Wildcati remember this from kettering...it was sweet to see
20-03-2010 23:14
Karibou
51, your redirection abilities ROCKED. Keeping the balls out of the center and defensive zones is probably one of the reasons your alliance was able to shut down 27, 201, and 1 in the finals. Also getting the points for hanging is a huge plus to that system.
20-03-2010 23:31
The CyborgI love this picture
One of the reasons is because I've been told that that specific ball went into a goal after being redirected (in a practice match of course). I wish I could have been there to see that happen (school took priority).
21-03-2010 03:16
Mr.GGreat job guys. Impressive robot. Congrats on the win.
21-03-2010 08:05
Josh Murphy
21-03-2010 08:11
Chris Hibner
There are some non-obvious features of the battery containment that worked out pretty well this year. The side-to-side containment is basically done by the drive motors and their mounting. The rest is basically hidden from view. The straps really just hold the battery into the good containment. It looks strange, but it's amazingly secure.
21-03-2010 11:30
BJCI missed the Elims at Detroit.
Did 51 consistantly redirect balls back into the goal?
At Kettering I remember they were having some trouble with this.
But its an awesome idea and design! Go Chief Delp... I mean Wings of Fire!
21-03-2010 13:00
Josh Fox
While 51 was not able to consistently redirect into the goal (I remember seeing this one go in a practice match) in the elims, their ability to simply keep the balls in their zone with teams like 67 and 1023 in there to clean up was more than enough.
It was also extremely frustrating to try and get control of the balls back once they got into that loop.
Congrats on your district win, Xerox Creativity Award, and UL Safety Award. See you at states!
21-03-2010 13:11
ALTrammell818As Josh stated, although they were not able to consistently re-score, they were a devastating enemy when they had a team who could score quickly. Their ability to keep control of the balls was a very nice addition to any already strong alliance. They supported 67-HoT very well and I believe everyone expected them to be the first pick of the draft.
21-03-2010 16:28
Chris Hibner
When we designed the robot, the real goal was to get the balls near the front of a goal so a partner team could push them in quickly and easily. Our thought was that the majority of the battle for being able to win a match was going to come in the neutral zone, and whoever could get balls into the offensive zone the fastest would win. We thought that if we scored 10-20% of our redirected balls, that's a bonus, but getting them quickly into easy scoring position was the design goal.
We made a few versions of turret extenders during the last fix-it window, and we'll test them out when we get a chance.
The thing I'm most happy about from this event is that we became enough of a kicking threat that we don't need to redirect all of the time. I'm hoping that strategic flexibility pays off at States and Atlanta.
21-03-2010 16:57
Lil' Lavery
It's great to see 51 in action and already off to a winning start. A great beginning to a new tradition from two former powerhouses.
That being said, while I have been a strong supporter of this strategy in terms of legality, I'm not sure about the legality of team 51's device. 469's is clearly legal, but the fact this robot is hanging introduces some doubt into my mind.
|
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5), b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE. |
| MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts. |
21-03-2010 17:06
EricH
From the looks, either the hanger or the redirector could be removed without affecting the other's operation (aside from the obvious larger impact forces on the redirector if the hanger is removed). That, to me, indicates two separate mechanisms. Only the one doing the interacting has the 3" limit.
21-03-2010 17:09
BJC|
When we designed the robot, the real goal was to get the balls near the front of a goal so a partner team could push them in quickly and easily. Our thought was that the majority of the battle for being able to win a match was going to come in the neutral zone, and whoever could get balls into the offensive zone the fastest would win. We thought that if we scored 10-20% of our redirected balls, that's a bonus, but getting them quickly into easy scoring position was the design goal.
We made a few versions of turret extenders during the last fix-it window, and we'll test them out when we get a chance. The thing I'm most happy about from this event is that we became enough of a kicking threat that we don't need to redirect all of the time. I'm hoping that strategic flexibility pays off at States and Atlanta. |
21-03-2010 17:30
Chris Hibner
As Eric said, everything used to hang is completely independent of everything used to redirect.
21-03-2010 18:43
Brandon Holley
|
As Eric said, everything used to hang is completely independent of everything used to redirect.
|
21-03-2010 19:08
Chris Hibner
|
We (125) agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation as you will all see next week in Boston.
-Brando |