Here is a picture of our 100% legal robot which just won the Design Award at the Pan Pacific 2013 Hawaii Competition. It’s not as interesting as our last years Differential Planetary Transmission system but it has very efficient use of space nonetheless. Details to come later.
From the photo, I’d say the design award was well earned. The intake width is of College proportions, and the robot has a kind of menacing stance :eek:. Can you lower the back of the chassis onto the field surface to act as a brake? My spy’s tell me that 4194C have entered NZ Nationals. Is their robot of a similar ilk to this machine?
I’m really glad someone actually tried this out. We made a prototype similar to this but had too many problems with stability and weren’t willing to carry out the necessary work to fix things. I’ll put up a video of our attempt later if I can find it. I think the biggest difference is that you put your 4 bar in the center of the robot.
The string is there for creating a tension between the two drives. The heavier the robot, the more the string will pull the bottom halves of the drive modules together while the top half would be pushed apart due to the three bar linkage. This would prevent the robot from bowing on the center and from scraping on the field tiles. The string really helped with the bowing issues, however getting the correct tension was a pain.
There are only three bars linking the drive module to the main chassis, we didn’t use linear sliders because of the weight and space issues, the extension mechanism had to fit into a half an inch space on both sides.
To all the questions about our C team, personally we really don’t know. We always joked about that team because they worked at someones house and hoarded all of our parts. None of the other teams have ever seen the C team’s actual robot. The only inkling I have about their robot is that it’s using a swerve drive and is most likely defensive oriented.