# of limbo machines?

Posted by Doug Fischer.

Student on team #41, Warriors, from Watchung Hills and Cordis.

Posted on 2/8/2000 12:58 PM MST

I have been talking with members of my team and other teams and often the question of how many teams will be able to go under the bar under the trough comes up. What do you guys think, i think it will be about 1/3 of the teams, but ive heard estimates from 15% to 75%, I’d like to hear everyone elses’ estimates.

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 2/8/2000 1:16 PM MST

In Reply to: # of limbo machines? posted by Doug Fischer on 2/8/2000 12:58 PM MST:

I would say about 50% of teams, if not more will do the limbo. I am comparing the under the bar vs. over the ramp thing to last years hang from the pole on the puck vs climbing the puck. You can still compete well doing either of them, you just need to be able to do one thing well.
Good Luck All,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

Posted by Patrick Seeney.

Student on team #469, Las Guerrillas, from Oakland Robotics and Lawrence Technological University.

Posted on 2/8/2000 1:38 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Andy Grady on 2/8/2000 1:16 PM MST:

I can guarantee at least 1/378 of the teams is aiming ot go under the bar…

Pat
Team 469

Posted by Dan.

Other on team #247, da Bears, from Berkley High and PICO/Wisne Design.

Posted on 2/8/2000 2:34 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Patrick Seeney on 2/8/2000 1:38 PM MST:

Make that 2/378 :slight_smile:

: I can guarantee at least 1/378 of the teams is aiming ot go under the bar…

: Pat
: Team 469

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 2/8/2000 11:14 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Dan on 2/8/2000 2:34 PM MST:

: Make that 2/378 :slight_smile:

Or 3/378 as it were . . .
I really hope some team chose to ‘fall over’ at the start so they can be 36’ wide, 5ft. long, and 30’ high. I also hope that said team can do really well so I can tell my team ‘I told ya so!.’
:slight_smile:
Can’t wait to see what everyone has been doing; cya @ KSC.
:-Dan

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 2/9/2000 2:41 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Dan on 2/8/2000 11:14 PM MST:

exactly!
i love the idea of transformer robots… would the # of limbo bots include the transformers? if so, then i’m gonna vote for 40/60 (over/under)

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 2/9/2000 8:37 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Jon on 2/9/2000 2:41 AM MST:

I dunno…they way people are talking, I’m guessing the mere act of falling over would create a decided disadvantage, timewise. It’s a cool concept, but time is of the essence, so it seems.

-DL

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 2/9/2000 3:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Daniel on 2/9/2000 8:37 AM MST:

I envisioned a really fast system to switch from starting to limbo… my team isn’t following it but i think it to be possible…

jon

Posted by Donn Griffith.

Coach on team #343, HC-COP, from F.P. Hamilton Career Center and NASA Kennedy Space Center/Oconee Partnership.

Posted on 2/9/2000 4:32 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Jon on 2/9/2000 3:33 PM MST:

: I envisioned a really fast system to switch from starting to limbo… my team isn’t following it but i think it to be possible…

: jon

We are still trying to figure out why we even have to get under the bar. Guess we will just have to keep hanging in there. At times we may seem a little slow down here in South Carolina but we plan to burn up the ramp at KSC and on to the Nationals.

donn

Posted by Frank Saladino.

Coach on team #353, POBOTS, from Plainview CSD and Computer Associates.

Posted on 2/10/2000 9:37 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Donn Griffith on 2/9/2000 4:32 PM MST:

I like the idea of not being blocked at the ramp.

Our design is 13 inches high by 36 X 27 so far we have it all inside the envelope. I wish the light was a bit smaller.

Anyone else have the top of the light melt a hole in itself? Seems like a lesser wattage bulb would be in order.

BTW, we tried out the boom and claw on the bench today. It grabbed a roof girder and stuck to the ceiling. We bribed it with some Mobil 1 to get it down. . .

Good luck all.

Posted by Michael Betts.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 2/10/2000 9:09 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Jon on 2/9/2000 3:33 PM MST:

: I envisioned a really fast system to switch from starting to limbo… my team isn’t following it but i think it to be possible…

: jon

I wanted to suprise all of you but I guess I’ll let out this much: This year’s Bobcat goes from start to limbo in about 4 seconds.

We should be able to go from scoring at the goal to hanging on the bar in about 10 seconds.

I hope to verify both of these numbers on Saturday.

Anyone better out there? I just know someone will be…

Mike

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 2/10/2000 3:54 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Michael Betts on 2/10/2000 9:09 AM MST:

All I have to say is: Keep an eye on Sharpie3 from Team 69…she just may give Bobcat a run for her money… :slight_smile:

Good Luck!
Lora

: I wanted to suprise all of you but I guess I’ll let out this much: This year’s Bobcat goes from start to limbo in about 4 seconds.

: We should be able to go from scoring at the goal to hanging on the bar in about 10 seconds.

: I hope to verify both of these numbers on Saturday.

: Anyone better out there? I just know someone will be…

: Mike

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 2/9/2000 7:39 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Daniel on 2/9/2000 8:37 AM MST:

: I dunno…they way people are talking, I’m guessing the mere act of falling over would create a decided disadvantage, timewise. It’s a cool concept, but time is of the essence, so it seems.

I was thinking that the drive wheels would be touching the ground from the start and that right off the whistle the drivers would put the motors at full throttle which would cause the machine to tip over while accelerating. There might be a problem with hitting the edge of the field, but I doubt it. I really wanna see this happen though.
BTW, has anyone changed the orientation of their robot in previous years so that their footprint wasn’t 30in. x 36in.? I don’t think there has been a great motive to do so till now.
:-Dan

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 2/9/2000 7:58 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Dan on 2/9/2000 7:39 PM MST:

There was a team from Florida did it in Torroid Terror.

(As I recall it was Vistakon, Inc. / Sally Industries, Inc. & Stanton College Preparatory School, Jacksonville, FL – now Team 86)

They had a machine that was a wedge that was 4 feet wide.

The robot had to begin the match ‘upright.’

At the start of the match, they would fall over. They were not a real effective robot, but they did utilize the idea of falling over at the beginning of the match. FYI

Joe J.

Posted by Ken.

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.

Posted on 2/8/2000 2:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Patrick Seeney on 2/8/2000 1:38 PM MST:

: I can guarantee at least 1/378 of the teams is aiming ot go under the bar…

: Pat
: Team 469

I bet ya there will be 217/378 of the teams going under the bar.

Anyway…

A robot that won’t go under the bar will be infinitly tall (more like at least 4.5’), or else what’s the point?

As for the tiny robots that go under, I bet ya they will be about 28 27/32 inches tall.

Maybe there will be robot that’s a piece of ply wood with a device that will aim toward the hanging bar and shoot a hook toward it, then retract itself onto the bar. A 3’ x 5’ wood board above the ramp hanging on the bar is pretty threatening, huh?

What do you think?

Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 2/9/2000 9:15 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Patrick Seeney on 2/8/2000 1:38 PM MST:

Well we worked it all out tonight. The robot starts tall and falls over while accelerating, and gets to the far wall .2 seconds faster than when it starts flat on the floor. We are really a little amazed by it. Low, low, low center of gravity, love that. The driver just bumps it backwards so slightly you can hardly see it, then floors it forward.

I was pretty sure many teams would try it, but it proved a hard sell in my team, but I cry and spin in circles on the floor until I get my way, or at least they agree to try it once…

:o)

Of course I never grew up. Why do you think I’m on a FIRST team?

Sam

: I can guarantee at least 1/378 of the teams is aiming ot go under the bar…

: Pat
: Team 469

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 2/9/2000 10:36 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: # of limbo machines? posted by Samuel Lindhorst on 2/9/2000 9:15 PM MST:

Team 240 will have one more cheerleader at Nationals . . .best of luck and good luck with your design!! My pride is riding on your shoudlers.
:slight_smile:
:-Dan