Team 3675's 3 level climber!

What does the Delphi community think of our climbing/scoring mechanism?

http://imageshack.us/a/img826/9208/201302031540461.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img689/5927/201302031540341.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img651/5973/201302031539521.jpg

We can climb all three levels and hold our robot on the top. In addition, we also score in the lowest goal. Our idea is that we can score very consistently and frequently, and then climb for big points!

Our climbing is achieved by 4 2in OD Bimba cylinders. Two are attached to the frame of the robot and move the mechanism across two slides. The pitch to climb is then chain driven with torque limiters to make sure we don’t burn out our motors or damage the mechanism. A video is coming soon! Until then, tell us what you think! :cool:

Video or it doesnt exist.

Do you have video, hard to tell from pic… Thanks

2nd that but it looks good.

What stroke are your cylinders? 2inchers use up a LOT of air…

You also might want to take a look at this. I don’t know if you’ve heard about it but I’d hate for someone to get hurt.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112163&highlight=30+points

You might want to take a look at this as well. I don’t know if you’ve seen it bug I’d hate for anyone to get hurt.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112163&highlight=30+points

How do you keep the robot from swinging and missing the next bar?

Wow. There is something.
My team considered something similar to this design.
A 3 pt climber plus a dumper for the 1 pt goal is a valuable member of an alliance (if they’re not the captain). Good luck!

Now that I’m on a computer, I can be a little more thorough. I will do my best to get a video up soon. We are working out a few programming bugs to smooth out the operation.

Ideally, we will be around 50-55psi of working pressure to climb. With 6 reserviors and a compressor, we have enough capacity to climb in around 30-45 seconds, depending on final weight. Each 2in OD Cylinder is an 18in stroke. Swinging is prevented from the hook assembly along with the rotation of the cylinder. I think a CAD file may make things a little more clear. We used a free student trial of SolidEdge ST5.

General View:
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/1925/climber1.jpg

Top View:
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/5804/climber2.jpg

Reaching/Rotational Mechanism:
http://imageshack.us/a/img339/1221/climber3.jpg

Mounting Plate:
http://imageshack.us/a/img201/247/climber4.jpg

The Claaaawww. (Our team name is the Eagletrons, so we thought to make them eagle talons to add a little character):
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/1949/climber5.jpg

Capnslow, we actually made that article a point when we assembled the reservoir system. I thank you for that, it very well kept our team safe, as well as many others I’m sure.

Hopefully this all adds a little clarity to my initial post. If anyone has any questions shy of video or constructive criticism, please feel free to post up!

Oops, forgot to add, the CAD shows window motors in use with a belt driven sprocket, but they were too weak with the weight and leverage from the 2in OD cylinder. We have since switched to a PG-71 motor and gearbox along with what I believe to be a K75 torque limiter and chain drive. Just to be clear! :cool:

You may want to round the edges of your claw from talons to more…calm fingers. Wouldnt want to get called on it in inspection and have to file off the edge by hand in the pits!

Wow guys that looks awesome! I cant wait for the video of this thing is action with bumped on!

The hooks appear to be parallel to the ground to me, are they actually perpendicular to the ground or do actuate somehow?

The hooks remain oriented exactly as shown. Is there a benefit to perpendicular that I am missing?

I’m confused as to how you reach up for the bars if the cylinders actuate parallel to the ground.

Let me clear that up. The cylinder that is mounted to the frame pushes out the second cylinder and claw/motor assembly on a slide. After it reaches the end of its length, the PG71 motor and chain drive (Shown in the CAD drawings as a window motor and belt driven sprocket system) rotates to lift the second cylinder. We then move it against the rung, and close both cylinders. This moves us to the same position as shown in the 3rd photo of my first post. To climb the next level, we repeat the process with the other side assembly. We climb from the inside of the pyramid with our wheels perpendicular to the floor. Once we reach the top level, both pistons are retracted inward to contain us completely within the third climbing zone.

Hopefully that makes things a little more understandable.

Just looking at your design, i’m a little bit worried about the 54 inch diameter cylinder boundary that no robot appendage can violate. I know the the GDC changed the rules about this twice now and im not sure if you have been informed. The general rule is that the 54 inch cylinder includes the bumpers, and that the cylinder is only vertical relative to the field while not in contact with the pyramid. While in contact however, the cylinder is relative to the robot, with that being said, if you must violate the cylinder rule to climb while the robot is sitting flat, with the cylinder relative to the ground, then you also must violate the rule in order to be climb the pyramid. Just wanted to make sure that you were informed about this.

When the robot is in contect with the pyramid, it has to fit within a 54" x 84" cylinder in any orientation. The cylinder is not robot oriented. If the robot isn’t in contact with the pyramid, then the cylinder is vertical.

While in contact with the PYRAMID, a ROBOT

may not have its horizontal dimensions exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder relative to the ROBOT and
may not extend any part of itself beyond a vertical plane defined by a perimeter offset from the base of the PYRAMID by 54 in., see Figure 3-5b and Figure 3-5c.

could you link to where it says it is in any orientation?

The rules themselves have never been updated to state this and leaves the orientation somewhat ambiguous. It was stated in an FRC Blog Post.