pic: Team 254 2006 Robot 1

Here’s our 2006 bot. We didn’t have any pics of it fully assembled until we finished it tonight here in Portland.

It’s been great having your team at PNW. When it wasn’t suffering from teething pains, it was great. You have a great machine, and it will be fun to see how it goes tomorrow.

Man that thing looks cool. I know blue is your color, but I think it would look nice in red. :wink:


Looks different. I look foreward to seeing how she runs at SVR. From the other side this time around.

Wish you guys the best of luck!


Looking at this robot, I can’t help but wonder, what if it has the ball herder from the 2004 254 robot?

Makes me wonder if they might be able to make a little addition for a later regional, or the championship…

I must say you guys dominated the PNR quite clearly. After picking the one team that shut you down as your alliance partner I don’t think there was much stopping the win. Very mechanically sound as always. It is unfortunate that you won’t be attending the Sacramento Regional this year.

I love this design
very simple humanloading

how many balls can you carry? all of them? :smiley:

drive - ball capacity etc…

Here’s a closer shot of their ball collection and manipulation mechanisms.

The hopper can hold around 50, although once we stick more than 20 in there, we have issues with the polycarb deflecting, and balls wedging on top of the funnel in the bottom, causing jams. Hopefully we’ll have a fix figured out shortly, for SVR.

The drivetrain started with 2 FP’s and 2 small CIM’s, but moved to 2 CIM’s only once we had a boatload of problems with the FP’s. We decided we’d be better off removing them and regaining the weight for the rear roller on our frame which allows us to drive up the ramp backwards, and keep us from riding up on any balls. We knew we wouldn’t be winning many pushing matches to start with, so we’re fine with the tradeoff.

Our front roller picks up balls and delivers them to the hopper, as well as rolling them out into the side goals when reversed.

The rear set of conveyors delivers the ball through the back shell of the robot up to the shooter. We planned on having an aimer on the shooter hood, to adjust the angle at which the ball leaves the shooting wheel, but due to time constraints when we shipped it, it wasn’t working. We also found out we didn’t have the weight for it once we got to Portland. We may or may not have it back on the robot come SVR.

The shooter itself uses 2 CIM’s powering a custom machined, perimeter weighted ABS wheel. By sacrificing two CIM’s in the drivetrain, we were able to ensure that the shooter doesn’t slow down enough to make a difference between shots.

It really looked like you guys had the game figured out at the PNW regional. What really impressed me (other than the whole 11 goals in five or six seconds thing) was your low centre of gravity and ability to climb the ramp at any angle while pushing and shoving with other robots around.


Awesome bot guys.

Why exactly are you not using the FP motors? 1072’s drive is using 2 cims and 2 fps, and the drive we made team 100 is using 4 cims and 2 fp’s, all with great success. Me and team 1072 are bringing up the tools to replace pinions, if you need anything done at SVR, just come on over and we’ll be glad to help you guys out with this.

Thanks for the offer, Veselin, but I think Cory was kind of vague in his explanation of why we weren’t using the FPs on Saturday of the PNW Regional. They weren’t taken off the robot because of some sort of mechanical failure that we couldn’t deal with. We just decided that the cost / benefit tradeoff with either having the FPs or another component on the robot (due to the 120-pound weight constraint) didn’t end up in the FP’s favor; so off they came. No decision has been 100% decided on for SVR, though, so we’ll see what happens there.

Also, I would say that the hopper by itself can easily hold 20-25 balls, along with having ~5-8 balls in the conveyor system in a match situation.

we blew 3 FP motors.

1)we were drilling over the robot, and in our haste to get on the field, didn’t blow the chips out of the bot. FP proceeds to catch fire.

  1. We were replacing said FP, and in our haste to get back out on the field, we connected the FP leads into the conveyor. The driver had control over the conveyor, and the operator had control over the FP’s, which were opposing the CIM, and got completely toasted.

  2. The screws holding the FP to the AM planetary backed out, and the motor actually fell out of the gearbox. Turns out that while pulling FP motors off of spare AM planetaries, we swapped the mounting plate hardware accidentally, and ended up with screws that weren’t loc-tited.

After that we took them both off the robot. By removing them we freed up weight that will hopefully allow us to keep our rear roller, add on the camera, and some other miscellaneous hardware.

Cory, four CI Ms won’t ever stall on that robot. The FP’s won’t determine the winner of a pushing match, the friction applied to the ground via those 6 hot wheels will.

Yes, but if both bots are able to put the power to the floor (with all these traction wheels floating around, the tables are a little more even), that FP will give you a boost. Not to mention the increased efficieny in acceleration. :slight_smile:

I think they’re only using two CIMs for drive now.

Ah, my mistake. Regardless… I have not seen a CIM stall in FIRST. EVER.

I disagree. If both robots have the same amount of traction, the bot with more ability to turn the wheels will do just that, turn the wheels. A slightly mocked down version of burning out. I believe the lower RPMs help in a situation like that, putting more grip to the floor. Plus the higher load CIM is running more efficiently.

Just for the record… adding motors normally does not increase pushing ability, just range of top speed.

It most certainly does increase pushing ability. More motors means more torque, which as long as you haven’t exceeded friction*Normal Force means more pushing ability.

If you meant to say it increases pushing ability at higher speeds, you’d be correct, but it definitely does not increase the top speed of the robot.

I really am getting into a bad habit of not thinking things through, sorry. I meant it gives the potential for a higher speed. More torque due to more motors leads to the ability to turn a higher gear ratio resulting in a higher output speed.

More motors does mean more torque, but if you aren’t reaching stall torque to begin with, what is the point of adding more torque? It doesn’t improve anything in said situation.

It is quite easy to reach the limit of the electrical system, thus tripping breakers. More motors means lower current draw per motor since they are sharing the load.