|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
Team 1538 going over the bump in the Utah Regional Quarterfinals.
25-03-2010 00:44
Eugene Fang

25-03-2010 08:38
Andrew SchuetzeFirst question: has there been any cause and effect determination if flying over the bump leads to loss of robot communication?
Second question: if not what have these teams done to ensure that all radio/power/communication cables/wires remain connected after such extreme hits? Probably equates to best practices for all other teams since loose cables and wires may be one of a few possible causes for robots dead on the field during match play.
25-03-2010 09:40
BrendanBAndrew, our robot lost communication after going over the bump and we powered it up in the pit without touching any cables and sure enough, radio had lost power. The power for the radio is one of the easiest cables to come undone besides PWM's. We took a couple zip-ties and that ensured that you would need a pair of cutters to get the power cable out. Until I see a robot that truly flies over the bump, I will still think that the robot will keep on moving.
Nice robot 1538!
25-03-2010 12:17
Jon Jack
Early on we decided that is was important to quickly and easily traverse the bumps. As such, we designed the robot to be able to withstand the shock of maneuvers like this. Trust me, we did not get it right the first time - it was definitely an iterative process to make sure that the drivetrain components were strong enough and that the electronics could withstand the shock.
When we first started driving at the start of week 5 everyone (students, mentors, parents, teachers... i mean everyone) cringed whenever we went over the bump. It was not a pleasant sight to see or hear.
When the robot was finally assembled and working we actually set up a course and had our driver go over the bump 50 times without A) breaking something or B) losing communication... That was a very-very long night.
In San Diego we did have one issue early on in qualification rounds. We did a 'Dukes of Hazard maneuver' (as the FTA's liked to call it) over the bump and the robot lost communication with the field.
After the match we determined that it could have been a couple things:
A) The shock of hitting the floor was either damaging components inside the radio or knocking a cable loose.
B) Due to the positioning of the antenna inside the radio and the direction of the antenna used on the field, the robot gateways are actually most effective when mounted vertically.
After that match took a 1/16" piece of polycarbonate and made an L bracket out of it. We then mounted the radio vertically on the sheet of poly carbonate and left a little strain relief on the power and ethernet cables. This way when we do do a 'Dukes of Hazard maneuver' the shock is absorbed by the flex in the plastic. Since then, we've had no problems at all.
We haven't had any electrical issues that can be attributed to us pulling a 'Dukes of Hazard maneuver'. What we've done to help prevent that is to mount our electronics board on strips of foam. So far we have yet to lose power or comms when going over the bump.
Another thing that probably helps a little bit is that we run pre- and post-match systems checks. During these, we run through every system on the robot (drive, ball control, kicker). These allow us to do a couple things:
- We can replicate any problems we've had on the field so we can fix them.
- We can find potential problems that may not have affected us the previous match, but could in future matches
- We can go into a match knowing that all the sub-systems work.
25-03-2010 14:32
Kris Verdeyen
|
First question: has there been any cause and effect determination if flying over the bump leads to loss of robot communication?
Second question: if not what have these teams done to ensure that all radio/power/communication cables/wires remain connected after such extreme hits? Probably equates to best practices for all other teams since loose cables and wires may be one of a few possible causes for robots dead on the field during match play. |
25-03-2010 14:42
Jon Jack
Yes, there are two radios that are legal this year. The radios we used last year (WGA600N) must have been discontinued because many vendors are out of stock.
The new radios (WET610N) are actually better. The WGA600N's have a 1dBM antenna, whereas the WET610N radios have a 12dBM antenna. The only drawback to the new radios is that they take longer to establish comms with the field.
25-03-2010 21:26
mahumnut|
Second question: if not what have these teams done to ensure that all radio/power/communication cables/wires remain connected after such extreme hits? Probably equates to best practices for all other teams since loose cables and wires may be one of a few possible causes for robots dead on the field during match play.
|
03-10-2010 17:43
jason701802Did you guys ever figure out what was causing the random shutdowns in the finals in Salt Lake?
03-10-2010 18:42
Hawiian Cadderi dont know if anyone used this this year, but a couple years ago our team used a vibration dampening board to shield the IFI controller, it was some sort of weird wood, it almost had a flex like a piece of cloth.
03-10-2010 20:10
DaleDid anyone use shock absorbers, perhaps like these , on their robot? Given all the shock involved I'd love to find something to use going forward that doesn't add too much weight.
03-10-2010 20:18
BrendanB|
Did anyone use shock absorbers, perhaps like these , on their robot? Given all the shock involved I'd love to find something to use going forward that doesn't add too much weight.
|
04-10-2010 09:13
IKE|
Did anyone use shock absorbers, perhaps like these , on their robot? Given all the shock involved I'd love to find something to use going forward that doesn't add too much weight.
|
04-10-2010 09:40
Greg McKaskleThe official shock rating of the cRIO and its modules is 50G's. Again, not that difficult to attain when the robot has no suspension. As a pretty predictable indication, the clip on the modules releases at over 50. Clearly the cRIO will often take more, but has not been validated or rated over 50g.
Commenting on team 704's experiences in Dallas, I visited their pits a number of times as their robot was amazingly robust, was catching lots of air, and disabling as a result. Early indications were that the zero-config button on the front of the black bridge was being pressed as the bridge hit the bottom or side of their lexan sleeve they made for it. After modifications so that wouldn't happen, the problem persisted. Apparently the PCB within the bridge was able to move and internally press the button. A replacement bridge had not issues with this, and the original may have been due to internal damage due to previous hits.
Greg Mckaskle
04-10-2010 09:52
apalrd
|
....As a pretty predictable indication, the clip on the modules releases at over 50. Clearly the cRIO will often take more...
|
04-10-2010 11:42
jspatz1This photo brings back memories of the Curie semifinals. Daisy Bell was all over the place, impossible to keep up with, a very athletic bot.
Our bump crossing method often gave us some very extreme impacts on our rear swerve modules, which mounted with verticle shafts. We softened the impact by stacking a few of these wave springs to gain some suspension - http://www.mcmaster.com/#catalog/116/1216/=94oqg3
04-10-2010 17:18
Jon Jack
|
Did you guys ever figure out what was causing the random shutdowns in the finals in Salt Lake?
|
04-10-2010 19:14
jason701802|
No we have not figured out what exactly is causing these issues. We thought we had fixed them at Championships, but they reappeared again at IRI. It's currently at the top of our off-season engineering to-do list.
|
04-10-2010 20:57
jspatz1|
It is my understanding that the main breaker was tripping, is that right? I am just having trouble understanding how any soft of communication of controller error could cause the main breaker to trip.
|
04-10-2010 22:56
jason701802|
There were many reports of some faulty KOP main breakers that were overly sensitive to tripping, and could trip with a physical bump. Never had that trouble ourselves but our inspector at champs said he had seen several.
|
04-10-2010 23:15
robodude03|
Another thing I will finally say is that during San Diego QF2-2 we sheered a 7075AL output shaft in one of our transmissions (I will post a picture on CD-Media after I make this post). It just so happened that a transmission output shaft was one of the shafts we did not have spares for in San Diego. So we removed the broken shaft, took a spare shaft from a different part of the robot and "MacGyvered" it in place. The whole operation took about 15 minutes - we didn't even have to use a timeout...
The robot ran through the next two semi-final matches without a glitch - still able to go over the bumps as though nothing was wrong. Thursday morning in Utah (our next regional) we completely rebuilt both sides of the drivetrain with new (redesigned) shafts and sideplates. |