Posted by Rob DeCotiis at 1/14/2001 12:38 PM EST
Student on team RoBUCtics from Red Bank Regional High School.
What are the dimensions of the bar that runs across the field? is it possible to just go right over this bar and ignore the bridge altogether??? somebody make a drawing or something, so it’s clearer than the FIRST blueprints, because im finding that they’re really vague… Thanx!
Posted by Michael Martus at 1/14/2001 12:50 PM EST
Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.
In Reply to: Question about the bridge
Posted by Rob DeCotiis on 1/14/2001 12:38 PM EST:
Yes it is possible to go over the bar. Consider the forces and mechanisims involved before you make that decision.
I am sure there will be some teams that choose over the bar while a few crazy teams will choose the under the bar route. Over the ramp is by far the easiest route. However it will be crowded at times and will need a gate keeper.
As always the drawings are not great. I think this is done on purpose to cause teams to question, communicate and get the details right. The people at FIRST make very few errors, view this as a challenge presented to us, like the real world.
Posted by ChrisH at 1/14/2001 2:48 PM EST
Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raetheon, et al.
In Reply to: Re: Question about the bridge
Posted by Michael Martus on 1/14/2001 12:50 PM EST:
: As always the drawings are not great. I think this is done on purpose to cause teams to question, communicate and get the details right. The people at FIRST make very few errors, view this as a challenge presented to us, like the real world.
I agree with Rob, AutoCad left to itself would probably dimension things better. By the standards used at the company I work for, the drawings used very poor practice. This is NOT typical of FIRST. Therefore the omissions and poor practice are DELIBERATE. But they also reflect the real world. Because poeple put the things in drawings that are important to them and don’t always consider what the guy actually building something really needs.
Speaking from experience
Christopher H Husmann, PE
Lead Engineer Manipulator Team
Team 330 the Beach’Bots
Posted by nick237 at 1/14/2001 3:18 PM EST
Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.
In Reply to: Re: Question about the bridge
Posted by ChrisH on 1/14/2001 2:48 PM EST:
I do not believe that “inteligent” people could leave out vital information deliberatly, it makes them look stupid.
I as a member of a limited sized team with limited skilled help, we consider our selves better off than teams “rookies” that are even more limited. As a member I have enough to do with the design, building and stratagy concept with out having to play “mind” games with FIRST.
FIRST is not so good that they dont make errors but it takes a big man to admit it.
The organizasion should make and send new drawings that have all the information corected, we can not depend on nonsensicle updates that make less sence than the original print.
I asked for clarification on the base angle iron of the ramp A1, A3, A4, and the reply was gibberish.
We did not have this problem to this degree last year, I could not find the drawing we used for 2000 as I wanted to see if it was made by the same person.
The ramp does not, and will not work as configuered. Math tells us so…
nick237
:
: : As always the drawings are not great. I think this is done on purpose to cause teams to question, communicate and get the details right. The people at FIRST make very few errors, view this as a challenge presented to us, like the real world.
: I agree with Rob, AutoCad left to itself would probably dimension things better. By the standards used at the company I work for, the drawings used very poor practice. This is NOT typical of FIRST. Therefore the omissions and poor practice are DELIBERATE. But they also reflect the real world. Because poeple put the things in drawings that are important to them and don’t always consider what the guy actually building something really needs.
: Speaking from experience
: Christopher H Husmann, PE
: Lead Engineer Manipulator Team
: Team 330 the Beach’Bots
Posted by Justin Stiltner at 1/14/2001 7:24 PM EST
Student on team #388, Epsilon, from Grundy High School and NASA, American Electric Power, Town of Grundy.
In Reply to: Re: Mind game Questions about the bridge.
Posted by nick237 on 1/14/2001 3:18 PM EST:
: I do not believe that “inteligent” people could leave out vital information deliberatly, it makes them look stupid.
: I as a member of a limited sized team with limited skilled help, we consider our selves better off than teams “rookies” that are even more limited. As a member I have enough to do with the design, building and stratagy concept with out having to play “mind” games with FIRST.
: FIRST is not so good that they dont make errors but it takes a big man to admit it.
: The organizasion should make and send new drawings that have all the information corected, we can not depend on nonsensicle updates that make less sence than the original print.
: I asked for clarification on the base angle iron of the ramp A1, A3, A4, and the reply was gibberish.
: We did not have this problem to this degree last year, I could not find the drawing we used for 2000 as I wanted to see if it was made by the same person.
: The ramp does not, and will not work as configuered. Math tells us so…
: nick237
:
: :
: : : As always the drawings are not great. I think this is done on purpose to cause teams to question, communicate and get the details right. The people at FIRST make very few errors, view this as a challenge presented to us, like the real world.
: : I agree with Rob, AutoCad left to itself would probably dimension things better. By the standards used at the company I work for, the drawings used very poor practice. This is NOT typical of FIRST. Therefore the omissions and poor practice are DELIBERATE. But they also reflect the real world. Because poeple put the things in drawings that are important to them and don’t always consider what the guy actually building something really needs.
: : Speaking from experience
: : Christopher H Husmann, PE
: : Lead Engineer Manipulator Team
: : Team 330 the Beach’Bots
What exactly is wrong with the bridge??
I dont see any problem with it
Justin Stiltner
Team #388
Epsilon
Grundy Va,
Posted by nick237 at 1/14/2001 7:51 PM EST
Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.
In Reply to: Re: Mind game Questions about the bridge.
Posted by Justin Stiltner on 1/14/2001 7:24 PM EST:
Justin. The problem is that we are told that the bridge is held on the cross beam by two 2" angles (A1) 4’ wide and spaced 6" apart pointing down on the underside of the ramp.
The cross beam flat on the floor was “4x4” but now were told is 4"x6" with angle iron (A3 @ A4) wraping around the wood corners to protect wear. a 6" wide peice of lumber with the angle corners sitting between the 6" spaced apart ramp angle will NOT alow the ramp to freely ballance.
Do you see what Im getting at???
nick237
: : I do not believe that “inteligent” people could leave out vital information deliberatly, it makes them look stupid.
: : I as a member of a limited sized team with limited skilled help, we consider our selves better off than teams “rookies” that are even more limited. As a member I have enough to do with the design, building and stratagy concept with out having to play “mind” games with FIRST.
: : FIRST is not so good that they dont make errors but it takes a big man to admit it.
: : The organizasion should make and send new drawings that have all the information corected, we can not depend on nonsensicle updates that make less sence than the original print.
: : I asked for clarification on the base angle iron of the ramp A1, A3, A4, and the reply was gibberish.
: : We did not have this problem to this degree last year, I could not find the drawing we used for 2000 as I wanted to see if it was made by the same person.
: : The ramp does not, and will not work as configuered. Math tells us so…
: : nick237
: :
: : :
: : : : As always the drawings are not great. I think this is done on purpose to cause teams to question, communicate and get the details right. The people at FIRST make very few errors, view this as a challenge presented to us, like the real world.
: : : I agree with Rob, AutoCad left to itself would probably dimension things better. By the standards used at the company I work for, the drawings used very poor practice. This is NOT typical of FIRST. Therefore the omissions and poor practice are DELIBERATE. But they also reflect the real world. Because poeple put the things in drawings that are important to them and don’t always consider what the guy actually building something really needs.
: : : Speaking from experience
: : : Christopher H Husmann, PE
: : : Lead Engineer Manipulator Team
: : : Team 330 the Beach’Bots
: What exactly is wrong with the bridge??
: I dont see any problem with it
: Justin Stiltner
: Team #388
: Epsilon
: Grundy Va,
Posted by Kate T190 at 1/14/2001 8:08 PM EST
Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
In Reply to: Re: reply to justin and others, bridge.
Posted by nick237 on 1/14/2001 7:51 PM EST:
Looking at the updated blueprint (http://www2.usfirst.org/2k1comp/blueprints/blueprint-page2.pdf), we and 157 came to the conclusion that the 6 7/16" was the dimension to the outside of the angles with the angles facing each other… Kind of like |_ _| but upside compared to that…
T190 XO
Kate
Posted by nick237 at 1/14/2001 9:33 PM EST
Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.
In Reply to: 6 7/16" to outside of angles
Posted by Kate T190 on 1/14/2001 8:08 PM EST:
Thanks Kate. I will look that up right away, now it makes sence and everything fits right.
You should work for FIRST.
nick237
: Looking at the updated blueprint (http://www2.usfirst.org/2k1comp/blueprints/blueprint-page2.pdf), we and 157 came to the conclusion that the 6 7/16" was the dimension to the outside of the angles with the angles facing each other… Kind of like |_ _| but upside compared to that…
: T190 XO
: Kate
Posted by Ken Leung at 1/15/2001 5:20 AM EST
Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.
In Reply to: Re: 6 7/16" to outside of angles
Posted by nick237 on 1/14/2001 9:33 PM EST:
Now that I see you guys talking about this, and I look at the blue print, you are right! It is inward instead of outward. I could’ve swear I saw that configuration at kickoff, and I hate myself for not mentioning that. So yeah… this will change our bridge’s behavior quite a lot. Thanks people.
Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/15/2001 8:44 PM EST
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
In Reply to: interesting
Posted by Ken Leung on 1/15/2001 5:20 AM EST:
Ken,
More than that, the earlier version of the blueprint
had the angles on the bridge facing way from the 4X6 too.
Again, FIRST should be ashamed of the mess that that
early print has made and that the current print still
fails to resolve.
By the way, has anyone else found a secret dimension
hidden on the print somewhere that tells where the “tow
bars” are with respect to the edge of either the goal
or the stretcher.
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but this is sort of
an important dimension, especially since
Raul-the-Magnificent tells us he has been told that the
print is not necessarily to scale.
Ah well… …this too will pass.
Joe J.
Posted by Michael Betts at 1/15/2001 9:35 PM EST
Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.
In Reply to: V1.0 of the print had it wrong too!
Posted by Joe Johnson on 1/15/2001 8:44 PM EST:
: By the way, has anyone else found a secret dimension
: hidden on the print somewhere that tells where the “tow
: bars” are with respect to the edge of either the goal
: or the stretcher.
Dr, J,
From Update #3:
“The outer bolt holes of the grab bar mounts (Part # KK70-7) are in-line with the outer bolt holes of the caster bases. These holes fall approximately 1” in from the adjacent edge of the goal base.”
MIke
Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/15/2001 10:19 PM EST
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
In Reply to: Re: V1.0 of the print had it wrong too!
Posted by Michael Betts on 1/15/2001 9:35 PM EST:
Thanks,
This is one of those cases of the right information at
the right time. When I read Update #3, I had other
issues on my mind. I totally missed that bit of
information because I had not gotten to that stage of
the game.
When I was ready for the information, it was not where
I expected it to be.
I should have checked the Updates before openly griping
about the prints again.
Thanks again.
A humbled,
Joe J.