Say you had a robot with 4 C channels on each side, and once you build it it’s front is very heavy. I think probably the best way to counter that weight would be to use steel C channels on the side which you want balanced, therefore no extra parts need to be implemented, while it also makes your robot stronger.
“Axles” give the highest density for a counterweight, 5x25 steel plates are easier to bolt in place.
likely if you need counterweights as part of your design, your design is flawed.
but if you really want some weights, HS shafts will probably give you the highest density.
I saw a team that made a little box in their robot, and filled it with steel collars. Collars are extremely heavy, so you can do that if you absolutely need a lot of weight. However, most times steel is sufficient as many others have already said on this thread.
Really??? Have a look at the “design flaw” in the picture below. Actually, counterweights are often carefully designed for the purposes they serve, whether to provide rotational stability (consider the counterweights built into an engine crankshaft opposite each bearing journal), adjust for normal variation (like the weights attached to automobile wheel rims to balance the rotation), or as on forklifts and cranes (and many robots) to adjust for the center of gravity when there are various dimensional constraints in place.
Ok you got me there, but in vrc, most robots typically shouldn’t need counterweights, unless you’re lifting incredibly heavy loads, like that forklift.
I agree. but @Xenon27probably meant that with the vex system and its limited power, adding a lot of weight that is not a mechanism is not good for the chassis motors.
PS having said that, weighting is sometimes needed to get the optimal traction in wheels. Though you could often do it simply by moving your mechanisms around.
Why not utilize anti-tips instead of increasing the weight on your base?
because with anti tips the robot still wobbles. also I use mecanums so I need even weight on all four wheels.