1137 Rocket Sauce 2009 Robot slideshow

Check it out and let us know what you think!!:slight_smile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_m6-U0fm_Y

very nice bot how many balls can you hold in that arc

around 7 or 8

Nice!

What’s that music, BTW?

I know its a techno beat but I do not know the name

As it says in the credits, it’s Sandstorm by Darude.

lol yea what he said :slight_smile:

I’m concerned your rear bumpers are not legal. You must have at least 6" of protection on each corner, and it does not appear you have that on the rear.

See this thread for an ad naseum discussion of what is essentially your exact design, in which it was concluded it was illegal.

I’m with Lavery here… The inspectors will not pass you, or had better not. This exact design is called out in their training manual as illegal due to a non-protected corner, or 2 of them.

<R08> The BUMPER location and design have been specified
so that ROBOTS will make BUMPER-to-BUMPER contact during any collisions. If
implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal
PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the
wall. To achieve this, BUMPERS must be constructed as described below and illustrated in Figure 8 – 1.
A. BUMPERS must be built in segments, with a minimum length of six inches, and a maximum
length that does not exceed the maximum horizontal dimension of the ROBOT.
I. BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER Figure 8 – 2
K. BUMPERS must protect a minimum of 2/3 of the BUMPER PERIMETER. Teams are
encouraged to maximize the area of the ROBOT protected by BUMPERS. But up to 1/3 of
the BUMPER PERIMETER may be unprotected to provide flexibility in design options.

Figure 8 – 2 shows a diagram of similar tapered back as this robot.
“This design follows the intent of all bumper rules. It is well protected from all hits, while still allowing mobility of the trailer. If the bumper rule intent isn’t to keep robots protected, then what IS it for?” Personally I can’t see the inspectors rejecting this team over this toss up. How would that be in the spirit of FIRST?

Take a look at the red line on Fig. 8.2. This marks the bumper perimeter. See that pair of bends right at the ends of the lower bumper? This means that that section of that drawing violates <R08-I> as clarified/enforced. Ironically, this drawing is intended to clarify the rule…

Look at it this way: a corner is anything that causes the bumper perimeter to change direction other than stuff like bolts, etc. So if your bumper perimeter changes direction, you have to put 6" of bumper on both sides. (Yes, even if it’s a curve.) The back of your robot has 2 such direction-changing places: one each side of the trailer hitch. If you can fit 6" of bumper between the hitch and the corner while following the tongue clearance rule (<R18-E>), then you are perfectly legal. If, however, you cannot, I would suggest planning out how you will resolve the situation.

While I realize that the drawing shows a robot with a similar design, the drawing is not the rule, and clearly shows other rule violations (including that same rule). Please read the thread I posted earlier for a full discussion of such matters.

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Team%20Update%208.pdf

Just saw where you posted that. That indeed does clarify. Thanks for pointing this out

Yes, thank you for pointing that out so that we can come up with a plan to fix it

they passed us but kinda scowled at it