what do you think about these?

look at the bottom most part of this thread:

Nice telescope.

The 2.5" Omni’s with 1:1 gearing will be EXTREMELY SLOW, gear them or move to the four inch wheels.


It looks like he’s running high strength motors with a slight chain overgear, so I bet he’s taking advantage of the high speed option. If he is, I would be weary of current draws once you add some weight to the bot.

I don’t see any chain, but I actually didn’t notice the… wait… Aren’t HS teams only allowed two of the high-strength motors or am I mistaken?

Oh, I was looking at the first picture. HS teams get four.

Interesting, I could have sworn that HS got two and college teams got four. Isn’t that why the Cortex only has two two-pin motor ports (yes I know the PWM bridge thing allows you to use three-pin ports as well)?


I know before the rules were posted you had suggested that that may be what the rules would say, but yes, HS teams can use up to 4 HS motors.


Cool, thanks!

Didn’t actually know that…


Well more robots…
or mechs
tell me what u think

148 is a robot with jar thing that can lift and the pick up mech
149 is a wide jaw
150 is the end part of our pick up meck (holds 6 rings!!!)
151 is the part that picks up from 150
152 is the whole thing

more here

153 is us testing it out
154 is close up (when it opens to lock rings in)
155 is close up (when it closes to release rings)
156 is rolling thing (u put it parralell to the ground( does 4 but 2 if u shake)

lol took us a week or so???

image has bad resolution cause i took them from my phone

I would suggest you set some design criteria for yourself, then rate your prototypes based on how well they meet that criteria. The best manipulator will be a lot more obvious if you have goals in mind.

I really like the 154 spreader mechanism. That is very creative. While i agree with Chris’ point that you should get criteria before deciding which mechanism to use on a final robot i think you should continue with your Brainstorm Prototyping until you have a reasonable number of different mechanisms so that you can see which designs work well before you limit your search for the right mechanism. I feel if you come up with a very specific set of criteria before you design anything then you may completely pass over a great design.


It’s a tricky balance between strict criteria and creativity. Personally I’ve gotten attached to “cool” mechanisms that didn’t meet criteria I set, and then predictably performed poorly in competition because of that. On the same token, a mechanism that doesn’t quite meet your criteria, but does something almost as important 10 times better may be worth a strategy change.

This is all i was trying to stress. I see the prototyping that they are currently working on as brainstorming and the first rule to brainstorming is to never say no to a design. I believe that it is a little while later that you want to really decide what you want your mechanism to be able to do before choosing which design to go with.

As far as cool mechanisms go why not just make a cool mechanism that does what you want it to do?:wink: The coolness factor is something that we discuss a lot on my FRC team. I tend to what to build a mechanism that does it’s job very simply but maybe not in a cool way while others on the team tend to want a coolness factor that my not be very effective when it comes to winning the game. This past season i wanted to go for a defense robot because i felt it would be an easy way to play the game and possibly get picked into the finals. I tried to explain to the team that although offense was easily the most glorious part of the game it was unreasonable for use to try to build a bot that could outscore some of the great robots in our area. We ended up going with a defense robot and for the first time ever we made it to Atlanta.