Simple question: What frame dimensions are you interested in (or planning on) going with?
…and the followup: square, rectangle, or something else?:
Easier to integrate stuff into so far, plus (as far as we can tell) not much space that really has to be shared for which a full-sized, square robot couldn’t fit. Especially given that there will likely be some height, that’s even more reason to go wide at the base.
There’s some chance as mechanism design evolves that we could take some inches off of one dimension though.
I am trying to decide with a bunch of large bots likely (planning) on deep climbs and swinging around how much space there is left to maneuver at end game.
Personal assessment: It won’t be till Champs that you have 3 robots that can climb, and you need all three to climb.
Unless you’re gunning for top, design around 2 robots climbing, one sticking a toe into the “park” area.
But I’ve also been told I have low standards in this area, so please take this opinion with
How about this:
I am trying to envision a bunch of large bots where the climb may not be a smooth mechanism: How much space (during early quals in particular) will be consumed with people trying to line up and flailing around?
All of it. and maybe more.
Assuming only 2 climbing, I measure a ~70 inch “lane” that each bot gets to occupy in all it’s flailing. At a full-square (30 inches per side), that’s 15 inches on each side of play before you start to intrude on your partner’s lane.
Which… is tighter than what was in my brain, but hopefully not unreasonable?
I know for sure there will be teams that go crazy on their climb and get outside their lane. The question is… how many teams get that crazy?
Which… eeeh. I’d tend to argue that if a team is going that nuts with their climb swing, you’ll have enough other issues with that team being on your alliance that the climb isn’t going to make or break the match outcome.
It’s a loose argument though, based on a particular way I chose to assume things would go down. Easy enough to be conservative in a different direction and drive a requirement off it.
An exercise I just thought of but will leave to someone else:
If I take a 115 lbs point mass at the end of the deep cage, and deflect the point mass 15 inches sideways, what’s the magnitude of the force pointing inward, back toward the hanging-straight-down equilibrium?
And, what’s the likelyhood that while climbing, a robot exerts that force on the whole thing while climbing up?
At a certain point the battery becomes structural.
“Yes mr inspector, that’s a load-bearing motor controller”
It won’t make or break the win, but it will definitely decide if you get the climb rp or not.
If it ain’t broke…
Normally, I like to review these questions routinely, but I cannot see a reason for anything other than a 60x60 square this year. My team still needs a little more experience in packaging our systems before we attempt a smaller frame.
I have such faith in our student machinists that nothing less than perfect square will be acceptable.
Is that a Power Cube? No it’s our robot cart…
A POWER CUBE is a 1 ft. 1 in. (~33 cm) wide by 1 ft. 1 in. (~33 cm) deep by 11 in. (~27 cm) tall HDPE milk crate
Convient transport crate.
My take away is: plan on a cage approach that is perpendicular to the line of cages. And that tells me a camera is needed for climb—either automated line up or as a driver assist—I really don’t want to have to drive through the dangle of death to try it from the far side of the field
After building undersized in 2024 and it only making our lives harder on a bunch of fronts (both design and at-event maintenance), we will be close to the maximum perimeter this year. Unless there’s a strong strategic imperative to building smaller (triple balancing in 2012 and 2023, for example), cutting out viable space will harm the majority of teams more than it helps them.
For transport reasons, we are likely to build close to 27x27 x 40 tall, which is about how our 2023 robot was sized.
