pic: Team 1942-Cinderella Week 3 . . .


Are those mecanum on the end and omni in the middle? Interesting. You’ll move well but I doubt your robot will be able to push anyone; this may be a serious flaw in the design imo. Furthermore, seems like the entire build is a little bit high; it may cause some problems, especially with the scissor-lift – just a spectator’s view. Good luck at the regional guys, this seems like a very interesting bot!

That’s pretty awesome! Remember though that you cannot drag any part of your chassis on the bump. It appears that you’ll need to add a bit of clearance.

Wow, you guys pulled off a working scissor lift. That’s quite the feat. Is it powered yet?

Was this clarification made in a Q&A response?

Our mentors said it’s too complicated when we suggested this idea…
well at least they got OWND.

Good job guys, see you in Tel-Aviv P:

you do realize that a flat piece of metal cannot hang on a round bar, right?

Our team was considering a robot base with “pivot” in the center also. I cannot find the exact spot in the Q & A, but I believe that it was clarified that a base that pivots in the center is a violation of <R11>, which is why we changed out design. I may be wrong though.
Looks cool though!

It’s not complicated at all; we used those in 05, 07 and 08. It’s just very tiring work because everything needs to be very precise.

Regarding <R11>, I think I read something about it, but I can’t really recall. Can anyone find the exact thing and link/repost?

The Q&A clarified that about chains dragging. I’m not sure about how that applies to frames.

A flat bar can hang on a round bar, provided that there is a hook-type extension on one end.

The base that pivots in the center only applies to the Frame Perimeter. The GDC has clarified that in Q&A around Week 1.

Really?? Since when? :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m sure there’s hooks or something going on that shaft.:rolleyes:

rule 8.3.2
<R11> The FRAME PERIMETER must be comprised of fixed, non-articulated
structural elements of the ROBOT. The FRAME PERIMETER must remain a
fixed, unchanging polygon throughout the MATCH.

Yep, the drivetrain doesn’t count in frame perimeter determination. That solid frame above the drive would be the frame perimeter.

Is it only me or the metal frame of the drive train touches the carpet?

Eric, do you have a link to this response?

Too busy building a robot to look it up, eh?:stuck_out_tongue:


Based on <R08> specifically referring to traction devices and not referring to any other component of the robot, and the fact that that is the only rule covering field damage due to robot parts (other than the general “don’t cause damage to the field” rules), I would actually say that provided the frame doesn’t damage the field, this design is fully legal, with two exceptions, which I’ll cover later.

To clear up a little bit more on the frame perimeter/articulated drive question:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13955 (read whole thread or last answer, your choice)

The first thing that is probably illegal so far is that in the current configuration, the frame perimeter is changing as the lift moves.

The second thing that is illegal is the fact that the entire drivetrain is outside the current frame perimeter (see <R16>).

Both of these issues are easily fixed by putting a rigid frame for the bumpers out beyond the sliding scissors lift bars at about the same level. Make sure that 1) it fits in the sizing box with its fasteners and 2) the drivetrain fasteners are all on the inside of the vertical projection of that frame. (Big discussion here, multiple Q&A’s, and the long and the short is that <R16> only has one exception–fasteners inside the bumper zone.)

Oh you have no idea. :smiley: Anyhow, the language of <R08> reads

“traction devices” include all parts of the ROBOT that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the ROBOT and the FIELD
(emphasis mine) It would seem so long as something was not designed/inteded to provide traction, then in the event contact happened by accident, it would not be in violation, so long as it didn’t damage anything.

I’d have to agree with that, save for the chains (specifically ruled traction devices if contact is made). I can see why–they’re mainly for providing rotary motion to traction devices, making them usable.

That’s what a reasonable observer would probably conclude if they saw a chain hit a bump during a match. The chain/bump issue would have been a nice thing to let slip by and not worry too much about.

But since someone asked, and the GDC specified in the Q&A that such contact is not allowed, it looks like another pesky little design constraint that we need to follow.

I haven’t seen a ruling yet that calls frame members traction devices (and so I think coincidental contact would be permitted), but I’d be a bit irritated if one showed up.