What else do we want?

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST

Last year, FIRST asked the question: ‘what else do you want to use to build your robots?’

We said that we wanted more freedom with gears, sprockets and belts… we wanted more freedom with materials… and we wanted the ability to use aluminum extrusions.

And FIRST delivered! I think that they suprised us all when they allowed us these freedoms.

So, now I ask…

What else do we want?

Unlimited bearing use?
More freedom with plastics?
To be able to use ANY adhesive?

What do YOU think?

Andy B.

2

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 6/22/2000 7:51 AM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

Andy,

I think we should have complete freedom with the mechanical output of the armature for ALL of the motors in the kit. I’ve never understood why we should be restricted to leaving the worm gear output unaltered on the door, window, and seat motors.

I agree with limiting the performance envelope by allowing only use of motors supplied in the kit. That’s like limiting size and weight. But we should be able to treat stators and rotors as components, as long as we don’t begin rewinding, changing magnets, etc., ie: changing the performance curves. (Other than staying in the cooler parts of the map. We should be able to use as many cooling fans as we want, too - not for thrust, tho’, Joe)

Teams with lots of people/time/shop/$ resources can go off and really optimize the application of these little motors’ performance potential to the FIRST game task at hand, and less endowed teams can continue to innovate with methods for mounting and adapting the wormed-down output from these fairly stout and reliable packaged units. Put the two different bots head to head in a match, and who knows how it will go?

My 2 cents. I’ll probably expand the wish list.

Dodd

: Last year, FIRST asked the question: ‘what else do you want to use to build your robots?’

: We said that we wanted more freedom with gears, sprockets and belts… we wanted more freedom with materials… and we wanted the ability to use aluminum extrusions.

: And FIRST delivered! I think that they suprised us all when they allowed us these freedoms.

: So, now I ask…

: What else do we want?

: Unlimited bearing use?
: More freedom with plastics?
: To be able to use ANY adhesive?

: What do YOU think?

: Andy B.

3

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 6/22/2000 3:01 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

Ok, I think duct tape is a definte must…it has so many uses!! And talk about a quick fix on the field…hmmm… =)

Lora

4

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 6/27/2000 3:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Duct Tape!! posted by Lora Knepper on 6/22/2000 3:01 PM MST:

I think that a rule modification that would allow tape as long as it is not in view is overdue.

I have heard that Woodie is sort of an anti-duct tape zealot, but I think that the competition has progressed to the point that we can allow the use of tape without fear of machines totally taped together.

I think it would be reasonable to allow tape but only if it is not visible during the operation of the machine.

This addresses the cosmetic concerns I think FIRST worried about without tieing our hands when a piece of double sided tape is the right answer for the job.

Thoughts?

Joe J.

5

Posted by Matt Leese.

Student on team #7 from Parkville High School and NASA, Black & Decker, AAI, Raytheon.

Posted on 6/22/2000 8:35 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

Personally I’d like to see more sensors. Including them in the kit would be fine too. I think some sort of timing device and ampmeter would be great. Can you tell I work on the control system?

Matt

6

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 6/23/2000 8:21 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: What else do we want? posted by Matt Leese on 6/22/2000 8:35 PM MST:

: Personally I’d like to see more sensors. Including them in the kit would be fine too. I think some sort of timing device and ampmeter would be great. Can you tell I work on the control system?

: Matt

I know that since this message has the word ‘rumors’ in the title, it should be in the other board, but anyway…when I was talking with some of the Innovation First folks as they were packing up in Florida this past year, they mentioned a few new sensors and other things being in the works…that’s all I know, so that’s all I can say…

Nate

7

Posted by Justin Stiltner.

Student on team #388, Epsilon, from Grundy High School and NASA, American Electric Power, Town of Grundy.

Posted on 6/23/2000 5:52 PM MST

In Reply to: Rumors of Sensors for 2001 posted by Nate Smith on 6/23/2000 8:21 AM MST:

Some more pnumatic gear would be nice maby a $ amount that you can order from smc kinda like the small parts stuff. Also bring back the Compressor and maby a small air tank. I think that this year The weight of that tank and the limited Cylinders avalible made the pnumatics not evean an option for some teams. 24 Volt Motors and an extra battery would be nice.
Justin Stiltner
Team #388
Epsilon
Grundy Va,

8

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 6/23/2000 7:24 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Rumors of Sensors for 2001 posted by Justin Stiltner on 6/23/2000 5:52 PM MST:

a smaller compressor would definitely be a good thing… plus a smaller tank… that was way too big unless you expressively decided to build around it…
a kompressor would be nice to bring back.

jon 190

9

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 6/27/2000 3:35 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Rumors of Sensors for 2001 posted by Jon on 6/23/2000 7:24 PM MST:

Two very obvious improvements would be to be able to know wheel speed and to know ground speed.

With sensors like these we could do some very interesting traction control stuff – not to mention the idea of having the joysticks control wheel speed rather than the voltage at the motor. This would allow folks to get around all those silly schemes folks use to get their beloved robot to drive straight :wink:

AND WHILE I AM AT IT…

a current sensor or four would be a very very useful addition to the above sensors. Using wheel speed and current together with the known input voltage would allow us to get maximum performance from our motors without having to risk an overzealous driver in the heat of the battle turning the drive motors into toasters!

AND ONE MORE THING…

A temp. sensor could be nice too – same idea – detecting and avoiding smoking motors.

Joe J.

10

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 6/30/2000 9:14 AM MST

In Reply to: wheel speed & ground speed sensors… …and a current sensor posted by Joe Johnson on 6/27/2000 3:35 PM MST:

: Two very obvious improvements would be to be able to know wheel speed and to know ground speed.

Hello All;

I agree wholeheartedly with Joe - these things would be great. They are also surprisingly easy to implement…so I’ve suggested to FIRST that maybe they should allow us the use of any off the shelf analog or digital IC (maybe specify the catalogs we can use)…with a frequency to voltage converter IC and a reed switch on a shaft, we get RPM (speed) as a DC voltage which can be input directly to the RI analog port…current sensing can be done with a coil and an op-amp with some filter caps (current shunts are a bad idea if you plan on inputing to the RI)…a photo transistor could be used as a trigger for things…it would be more fun for the EE’s… :slight_smile:

Tom

11

Posted by Matt Leese.

Student on team #7 from Parkville High School and NASA, Black & Decker, AAI, Raytheon.

Posted on 7/1/2000 6:58 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: wheel speed & ground speed sensors… …and a current sensor posted by Thomas A. Frank on 6/30/2000 9:14 AM MST:

If they allow any IC’s, someone’s going to stick a Pentium onto the robot. Although that would be very cool it would give them a distinct advantage because of increased available computing power (and ease of programming…am I the only one who hates PBasic?). What I’d like is a C Compiler for the RC. Well, one can wish can’t he?

Matt Leese

12

Posted by Adam Krajewski.

Student on team #68, Truck Town Terror, from Walled Lake Central High School and General Motors Truck Group.

Posted on 7/2/2000 11:44 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: wheel speed & ground speed sensors… …and a current sensor posted by Matt Leese on 7/1/2000 6:58 PM MST:

What I’d like to do is to tap into the power of SX-Blitz on the Robot Controller. Is that possible/legal on the Innovation FIRST controllers? THAT would help make loop times accurate enough to really tap into the power of the GyroChip for PID controls and physical models.

And my robot would be AMD Athlon Thunderbird powered. :slight_smile:
Just think… By next year the AMD 760 chipset will be out… A SiMPy robot would be a work of art. :slight_smile:
THEN we’ll need the Freeze-It. :slight_smile:

Adam

13

Posted by Matt Leese.

Student on team #7 from Parkville High School and NASA, Black & Decker, AAI, Raytheon.

Posted on 6/25/2000 9:16 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

I forgot what is needed most of all in my previous post: a better cooling system.

I’m not sure about the other teams out there but I know my team had problems with drill motors (for the drive system) over heating. If we could have a better way to cool them on the robot it’d be much nicer (yes, I know better gear ratio’s would help too…)

Matt

14

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 6/27/2000 5:13 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: What else do we want? posted by Matt Leese on 6/25/2000 9:16 PM MST:

Hmmm, sound like 7 needed a way (and a rule to allow) to carry on board Freez-It =) …

15

Posted by Lloyd Burns.

Other on team #188, Woburn Robotics, from Woburn Collegiate and Canada 3000, ScotiaBank, Royal Bank Financial.

Posted on 6/27/2000 8:13 AM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

 Personally, I've never understood why bearings should be in limited supply. I doubt if any commercial venture would tell the Engineering Department 'Well, make a machine to do this and this and that, but don't use many bearings ... company policy forbids more than three on any project.'

 The other chafing point is the requirement to use 10 AWG for ALL the motor wiring, without supplying the limp 10 guage wire which would be useful for flexibility in the tight quarters around the connection to the motors. The manufacturers who supply wire with their motors usually don't supply 10 AWG, and last year I was very happy to be allowed to use Fisher Price wire on the FP motor; it had a right angle disconnect on it too, so that was one motor we didn't have to manufacture a rt. angle connection for.

 (You could probably manufacture springs from the supplied 10 AWG, but by way of contrast, I found locally, some 4 AWG clear plastic wire that felt like the old headphone (tinsel) wire, it was sooooo limp.)

Lloyd

: Last year, FIRST asked the question: ‘what else do you want to use to build your robots?’

: We said that we wanted more freedom with gears, sprockets and belts… we wanted more freedom with materials… and we wanted the ability to use aluminum extrusions.

: And FIRST delivered! I think that they suprised us all when they allowed us these freedoms.

: So, now I ask…

: What else do we want?

: Unlimited bearing use?
: More freedom with plastics?
: To be able to use ANY adhesive?

: What do YOU think?

: Andy B.

16

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 6/27/2000 3:24 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

As for me, I am pretty happy with the kit as it is.

For my own selfish reasons, I would really like to have some electromechanical clutches & brakes. To my way of thinking, this would open up a whole new area of exciting mechanisms that would be possible.

How about a reliable shifting transmission? Clutches can make this more easily done.

How about a lift mechanism doesn’t let you down after time expires? No problem with a brake in the kit.

What do you think?

Joe J.

17

Posted by Thomas A. Frank.

Engineer on team #121, The Islanders/Rhode Warrior, from Middletown (RI) High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 6/30/2000 9:16 AM MST

In Reply to: I vote for electromechanical brakes & clutches… posted by Joe Johnson on 6/27/2000 3:24 PM MST:

: For my own selfish reasons, I would really like to have some electromechanical clutches & brakes.

I’ll second that motion also!

The ratchet we built for our extension mechnaism was a work of art, but I would have preferred something simpler.

Tom

18

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 6/27/2000 3:48 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

I vote for more wheels.

How about a rule that allows any ‘off the shelf’ wheel (including casters) with a diameter under 10 inches?

This could make for some very cool looking robots. Think of all the bike wheels, tractor wheels, etc. that teams could use. Scan though the pages of McMaster just to get a feel for the variety that is out there.

Very cool – I say bring it on.

Joe J.

19

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi.

Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.

Posted on 6/30/2000 7:27 AM MST

In Reply to: Wheels Wheels Wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 6/27/2000 3:48 PM MST:

Yes, wheels!

I’ve never been a big fan of the wheelchair wheels, and it seems like such a waste of time to have to design/manufacture custom wheels. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

I’m starting to think they should dump the pneumatics. We actually used them this year, just for the challenge of course, but they seem like such a waste of space and weight. I’d rather see a few more motor options instead, maybe another high torque one. Sorry SMC.

Other than that, I’m pretty content. Removing the limit on the structural materials and gears/sprockets/chain was all I ever wanted.

20

Posted by Andrew Rudolph.

Student on team NASA KSC/Michael Krop Senior High School from Michael Krop Senior High School sponsored by NASA Kennedy Space Centre.

Posted on 6/29/2000 6:17 PM MST

In Reply to: What else do we want? posted by Andy Baker on 6/22/2000 7:12 AM MST:

Well i Feel that some good servo motors would be real handy…Not like the little Hobby servos im talking like the ones used on equipment… THey are very good for making small manipulator arms and such…

Andrew