Did 2018 affect your robot design and strategy for 2019?


#21

In a more broader sense my team has gotten daunted by failed designs of the past. Without any context to why they were failed designs they just instantly shoot them down because its the knee jerk reaction when you think something won’t work.

Let this be a lesson to be very introspective in your yearly debriefing. Really analyze the failure or else you will never turn it into a success.

As an alumni of 8 years. I usually try to atleast make it to kickoff, so I can add historical perspective to the conversations. When students raise the questions on whether or not we need to be able to pick up game pieces on the field rather than from the feeder station. I bring up how we designed our whole 2013 bot around picking up frisbees which were rarely on the field, but in 2017 we prioritized feeding gears, and were vastly encumbered by not being able to pick them from the ground. The moral of the story being never build your robot that you can’t modify to be better. Don’t build in a single feature that handicaps the robot.


#22

Our elevator was waaaay too slow last year. (We were not designed to play scale but that’s all we ended up doing.) So this year our elevator is “sort of kind of a little bit faster”.


#23

Very much so. Since we had what was essentially a brand-new design team on a brand-new system this year, we did everything we could to not repeat last year. We pieced together some of our historically most successful manipulators from years past, and it seems to be working (knock on wood).


#24

Our 2018 experience definitely affected how we went into 2019

No
Suction


#25

I am sure others on my team would have much more to say, but for us it was a complete opposite design, our 2019 bot looks more like the 2018 bots and vice versa.

In 2018, we went against the grain and used an arm with an intake utilizing top and bottom rollers. This year an elevator with an internal intake that uses horizontal wheels.

So I’d say our particular 2018 bot didn’t influence us a lot this year except that we knew our intake worked amazingly well for cargo and it’s interesting to see some robots using similar looking designs this year.


#26

Suction can be a viable option for climbing, but it will never be anywhere near a good idea for game piece grabbing.


#27

Despite our bot working pretty well last year and having a pretty fast elevator(somehow) we decided to go high. Also we thought that most people that didn’t do an elevator would do an elevator.


#28

How slow is slow? We had a 2 775 pro Gearbox (forgot the ratio). We used a cascade elevator so that it can go 2x the overall speed. We ran at a low speed and it was pretty fast (bad CG led to having to use a slow lift)

edit: That was pretty fast elevator. Id say a little faster than ours. We have different definitions of slow.


#29

Just wait a few weeks. :wink:


#30

The only influence 2018 had on our design strategy was to look at the probable paths a bot would be likely to take and we decided we didn’t want a bot that had to turn around.


#31

2018 had a huge affect on our 2019 robot. Last year we did not have an elevator to do switch, so after the game reveal one of the first things said (by students who really wanted an elevator) was we need an elevator. The elevator also works pretty well, so we are excited to see how the robot compares to others in our district.


#32

Compared to some of the robots we were up against at provincials it felt like our elevator was moving in slow motion. Not this year, this year our elevator is scary fast!


#34

I’d say that our biggest issue was the motors that we used and the CG. We could be going faster but the amount we need to lift was so much that the weight affected it as well as going too fast would make us prone to tipping. It would be best if you had the ability to make a thin elevator(ours was huge for no reason) and make it as light as possible!