pic: FRC 1086 Final Robot: 2012

Here we are! After many weeks of hard week, Blue Cheese would like to introduce this year’s robot: Yarg!

Strategy: We will sit on the Key and let our allies feed balls to us.

Rationale: We don’t have any wheels.

I think all we need to do is tidy up the wiring and we are all set…

Looks spectacular, see you at Virginia.

Your robot looks better than ours, at this point…

However, your appendage looks illegal, as it appears to be two appendages when it first crosses the frame perimeter. That’s a no-no, according to the GDC Q&A on 2012-02-01

Q: Our question is similar to FRC1540. We want to put surgical tubing “whips” on a roller located at the frame perimeter. When this rotates the whips will extend beyond the frame perimeter. Is each “whip” its own apendage or is the assembly considered one appendage?

A: If multiple items exit the Frame Perimeter and are not contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter, they are considered multiple appendages.

NOTE: *Actual Robot in upper right corner…

There are some interesting hints as to what we are going to be doing if you have a keen eye…

When the appendage fully extends, they are connected outside of the frame

Looks like angles on the chassis to traverse the barrier, what about the turret? Do you plan on rotating it or fixing it and using the drive train to rotate it? Did you guys ever get your cRio problems figured out last year? It was a shame to see such a nice looking bot with so much bad luck.

You guys know how hard it is to powder coat wood, right?

I was expecting something in the vein of your 2009 robot. Looks like this one won’t disappoint either

1 Like

Therein lies the problem. When the appendage fully extends, it’s good. While it is in the process of extending, at least looking at current Q&A interpretations, it’s 2 appendages, and you’re only allowed 1. There is more discussion at www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100696.

We actually just talked about this issue at lunch today; we are planning on posting on the Q & A a question about if that instance where the rod that connects the two is behind the bumper but everything else is outside the bumpers will be forgiven. If not, we’ll work on re-drawing the part so it is within the rules.

There are angles on the real chassis, the one in the top right corner, for bump traversing with ease. It is a design that we modified from our 2010 robot. We are planning, after many long design and strategy discussions, on not having a turret this year. Pinpointing the issue with our cRio was an issue but we completely replaced everything between the code and the robot. So we have a new computer to download code from (including code in a different language from last year), ethernet tether, bridge, power converter, and cRio (4 slot). Last year was rough robot wise but it certainly wasn’t all bad luck that kept the robot stagnant.

Patrick Brew

Bears a striking resemblance to ours! The shooter is virtually the same!

Looks like your 2012 drivetrain is in the upper right hand corner of the picture. :wink:

Looks like the practice one. I think I saw a corner of the real one in the lower right.

Two points for Eric! Anything else you notice?

Bears a striking resemblance to ours! The shooter is virtually the same!

We have a little twist on our shooter this year. (no pun intended)

Yeah, you’re bluffing about not having wheels. The shooter base has 4 (not counting shooter wheels), which don’t look like they’re powered yet, and that other chassis I mentioned is levitating (or has some form of wheels on it).

well, let me qualify my response in saying we don’t have the right wheels…

what you see are spaceholders until they arrive.

Care to elaborate on these “right wheels”?


students wanted “bling.” This fits the bill.

we are sticking to our interpretation that what we have is legal. The connection between our two “halves” is outside the frame and therefore legal. I think some CD members are “over thinking the question” as I warn my Physics students…

Well, prepare to fail inspection. Q&A has pretty much said the opposite of what you assume.
(I don’t like or agree with it, but if the GDC says it, it must be so.)