You are correct, but we do a lot to make sure they get properly supported and protected against impact. We have done it before and will do it again, but we know that we have to be super careful HOW we do it to make sure that we don’t compromise the frame of the robot. You need good bumpers that are designed to deliver impacts to the right places of your frame to avoid damage and make sure those locations are very well gusseted. For us those key locations had fully riveted 1x1 perpendicular to the rear frame for almost a foot into the robot and that’s where we anchored the ends of our bumpers.
I know the first thought is “oh no!” but so long as functionality is fine my response is more “ha ha, just a little battle scar” 343’s 2014 robot has a kit-bot frame that isn’t very straight anymore, but it still drives like a champ (I find it the most fun to drive of any of our running robots)
Probably a little excess on the cutout pattern, though here at 401 we are good at making fat robots, especially when running an octocanum.
Yep, this has happened to our bot many times this season. Having a U shaped chassis and bumpers isn’t great for keeping the bot safe from taking some damage, haha.
This all looks like damage from scoring gears, not robot contact.
We experienced a dent in our 2" x 1" VersaFrame with the initial impact occurring in Carson QF3M1. As we played more matches, the dent became more of a crease as the frame was pushed in.
2619’s damage came from robot-to-robot contact. We had some sizable collisions with other robots when playing defense and traversing the field to collect gears.
Damage to 401’s was from robot to robot contact
Hey, if your eyes are good enough to see exactly when damage occurred during a match, wonderful.
I see a lot of dents right where the gear track is located when driving a gear onto a peg. Do you think that it is more likely that another padded robot did the damage? Or the rigid gear track your driver was pushing towards?
I thought it was the gear lift, they swear it was robot contact.
I know that when we have bumpers on our robot, the frame can’t even touch the gear carriage. However we have had a few busted gear intakes from getting hit by another robot or hitting the white flaps between each peg.
You would be amazed what damage will carry through pool noodles and plywood when you have a fast moving heavy robot backing it up. 5458 sheared ~20 3/16" pop rivets when they were doing some heavy defense on us at Sac, bent the whole front rail in on their frame.
I didn’t say it wasn’t possible, and I would appreciate you not assuming what I may or may not be amazed at. After all, I was around for Ariel Assault :ahh:
Looking at all the damage pics posted here they are all nicely centered on gear collecting/scoring mechanisms. With the possible exception of 4904’s damage, all images could very easily be from driving gears onto pegs. Do you disagree with that? More to the point: unless one of these robots is not scoring any gears in a match where damage occurred, or the drivers/people in the stands can visually evaluate the chassis after each collision/gear score, how can they be sure that the damage was caused by robot-robot interaction?
I just want people to have solid evidence of a problem’s/damage’s cause before they state something as fact. I know for sure that our robot sustained very similar damage from driving gears onto pegs. We recreated the damage in our practice area with no other robots around.
If you are going to sustain frame damage, the middle of the front of your robot is the most likely to take any heavy hit, gears or not.
What data do you have to substantiate that statement?
Heavy hits from and against our robots have all be in the corners. :]
Assuming tank drive, Id argue this is common sense. Generally robots are traveling forward or backwards and the heaviest hits will come when both robots are moving in the same direction at each other.
Common sense would dictate that one robot is trying to avoid the other, and will be trying to get off-center. Furthermore, a good defender knows that spinning another robot is often the most effective way to disrupt them, indicating corner hits again!
We can hand-wave arguments all day. :]
However, a tube like in this case is going to best supported in the corners since it will have another set of tubes backing it. Therefore the weakest point will most likely be the dead center of the front tube.
This is a different argument than what was presented before, and is a good point. However, it doesn’t really show that the damage’s source was robot-robot or robot-field. Note that the weakest point of the frame is the one getting smashed into the gear track.
When you have robot-to-robot contact, the contact is typically through one or two sets of bumpers that absorb some of the energy. Even if the corner of a robot hits yours in a gap in the bumper, it would most likely have to do so repeatedly, with both robots going at maximum speed to do the sort of damage seen in the 1st and 26th posts.
Many of the robots this year had a gap in the bumpers to allow the Gear to be pushed as far back onto the Peg as possible. When such a robot hits the Gear Peg Carriage on the Airship, the frame will make direct contact a rather immovable object of much greater mass than any robot on the field. The fact that the Airship’s mass is much more than twice the mass of any robot on the field will mean that the impact will involve more energy than two robots moving at the same speed and colliding (assuming that I remember my physics correctly).
The difficulty with this issue is that none of the robots are built the same. Each one has it’s own set of vulnerabilities. Just because one robot sustained damage from actual robot-to-robot contact does not mean another one did.