So we took your suggestions and replaced pop rivets, added screw pivots, put nylocks in important spots, and completely changed our mogo design although we’re still outside of regulation. We’ll probably change where the carry part of the four bar is attached to what is shown in my poor paint skills to reduce width.
And don’t cantilever the mogo lift. With all of that weight and torque, its just a bad idea.
In general, don’t cantilever anything, it results in bent axles, holes in c-channels, bad motors, and stripped gears.
Also, if I am not wrong, the Mogo lift should be able to move further inside the base so it can fit inside the size limit. What I mean, is that the four bar looks like it still has enough clearance to rotate further into the base. You only need to have it fit within the 18 inch limit at the start of a match, and most bots are right around the 17.5-17.9 inch range.
@meng I am always curious about how high profile teams like yours feel about other teams trying to copy your designs. Is this frustrating, or do you embrace it as a chance to help other teams? Also since the video you linked is “reverse engineering”, which is different than copying, I’m not saying that STEM class is trying to copy you, I was just wondering how you feel about teams that literally copy your robots
That’s what we sorta have but their front wheel is not powered by a motor at all which is why they can keep the frame small. We used a chained motor and as a result the supporting metal bar is farther outwards and pushes us past the 18’’ limit
My first impression when I took a quick look at the photos is that there are a lot of wasted space.
And that’s the reason I attached this link to you… hopefully you can take a look at how my guys manage to pack it in.
Why use steel rail for the chassis? Aluminum c-channel sounds like a much better fit and is by far the norm. Also using a one-by for one of the bars in a four bar isn’t the most structurally sound, try replaying with a piece of c-channel or cut-c?
I believe in the first thread that @Vyx said they don’t have 35 hole c-channels. But I agree on the one-by’s not being strong. In our robotics team we call them “bendy pieces”. Mostly because when we started VEX earlier this year we had no idea what anything was called so we also call shaft collars “locking pins” and washers “small spacers”
Well… to be honest, for a start, acknowledgment from teams will be great
But it is definitely not frustrating at all. But sometimes I do roll my eyes when I see teams “claiming” some of the designs as theirs.
I am sure you would have notice by now that there are some really good teams that will do an early season reveals, eg. 62, highwayman (ALBA), etc.
There are actually a lot of respects between all these teams. We do look forward to each other reveals and see what are the approach that the other teams are adopting.
And if you ask any of these teams, I am sure all the replies will be the same - we are just glad to be able to help to move the season forward.
Another point is that… we do feel a sense of satisfaction when we see one (or even two) of our designs becoming the mainstream designs.
As for theSTEMclass…we are actually very impressed by their reverse engineering!
In fact, I still hope to know which vex team they are in… would love to say hi to them during worlds
And as for designs… no worries… we never bring the same robot designs over to worlds… it will be something better. A bit of a teaser - my boys have done up a more efficient mobile goal intake