2011 Robot

Right now our 2011 robot is being built for our first competition, the Traverse City District. This robot is one that is truly raising the bar for our team, and for our competitors. The design is now complete, and parts are in the process of being manufactured and assembled. The programmers are currently writing the code to run this advanced robot, and it is being tested on our new test platform, and 2010 competition robot.  See back here for more updates!

Brag Sheet 2011

2010 Robot

Our 2010 robot was one of our most advanced robots yet, one that pushed our team to new heights. First off, it featured a crab drive, where all 4 wheels are able to drive and spin 360 degrees, which allowed us to out-maneuver all other robots on the field. All four wheels were independently powered, and steered with a CIM motor and Denso steering motor. The 2010 robot was able to kick balls across a 54 foot field with its pneumatic kicker, and hang itself off a 7 foot high bar, for an extra bonus in the endgame. Our design won us the Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control Award at the Traverse City District.

2009 Robot

The drive train was composed of four individually driven wheels. The wheels were 6-inch diameter spoked plastic wheels with hard rubber tires. One CIM motor provided the driving force for each wheel. A single reduction between the motor and the wheels of a toothed-belt type powered the wheels. Top speed was 12 ft/s. Twin steering systems utilizing Ackerman steering geometry. One system was assigned to the two left wheels, and the other was assigned to the two right wheels.

2008 Robot

The 08 used the Ackerman steering principle and drove like a car. Rear wheels were driven by two CIMs each and front wheels were steered. With a max speed of 23 ft/s, we made certain we could play the game with the fastest of bots. We had a ball brush at the top of the bot to uncap opposing alliance’s balls without allowing them to cross the scoring line, and the ball scoop arms pick up balls from the floor. The ball was hurdled using a catapult powered by bungee cords and released by a single pneumatically released catch. The bungee cords were re-tensioned electromechanically. We were able to make minimum radius turns at full speed without tipping.

2007 Robot

This machine had a four-wheel drive system and an articulated grabber, as well as a ramp system. The grabber had two articulations so that tubes could be rotated after they were grabbed without having to drop them. Game pieces were picked up off of the floor after having been thrown over the top of the player station wall. When the time came to deploy ramps, they were released from both sides of the robot with forward and side-facing ramps. This way, alliance members could climb from the field or from the end zones.

2006 Robot

This year’s machine had a drive train similar to the ’04, but with stability increases: the addition of retractable casters solved the bouncing-turning problem. We retrieved balls from the field with a unique system- an intake roller pulled balls under the robot, where they were pulled into the elevator system. From there, they could be deposited into the bin, shot into the upper goal, or simply be retained. Balls in the bin could be dumped into the side goals or recirculated back to the intake area for the elevator. Multiple photoeyes helped us detect the diamond plating leading to the corner goals as well as the ramp, and to keep track of ball positions throughout the ball system. The ’06 was known for its exceptional robustness and its ideal balance between offense and defense.

2005 Robot

Just prior to this year, we lost our main sponsor, JCI. This meant not only losing funding, but also our workspace, but we were not deterred! Our robot was a two-wheel drive with four casters- two CIMs drove each wheel. To pick up game pieces, it was equipped with an arm and a hook, along with automated arm positions to aid with scoring tetras.

2004 Robot

The ’04 robot had a 4-wheel drive train 12 inch diameter spoked pneumatic wheels. This (along with its gearing) gave the robot excellent push power, but gave it a distinctive “wobble” when it turned. However, its center of gravity was quite low, so this did not cause much trouble. The robot could grab and release mobile goals, uncap mobile and stationary goals, climb, and hang. We also had a plethora of autonomous programs, enabling us to move the mobile goals under the “waterfall.”

2003 Robot

This year’s robot was a two wheel drive with two caster wheels. It often remained on our side of the field and made certain to stack totes using an elevator system. The stack was built in the center of our robot. Our highest record was a stack 12 high. Once stacked, we made certain that the stacks would not be disturbed. At the end of the match, we climbed to the top of the ramp and used our “Big foot” suction cup to ensure our presence at the top for the extra bonus points at the end of the match.

2002 Robot

This year was our first attempt at a crab drive. It was built to gather balls using an intake roller and an elevator. At the top of the elevator, the bot directed whether balls would go into a bin or into a mobile goal (which the ‘bot was able to grab.) However, the robot was overweight, and the ball director and the bin had to be removed. Also, the crab drive stripped gears, making the robot immobile, so we worked on the robot a lot to try to correct the stripping gear problem. We had a lot of advice and help from other teams, and they visited us in our portable tool crib often over the course of the regionals. The 2002 robot provided an excellent medium for learning--- extensive repairs allowed students to spend a lot of time on the robot’s gears and motors. And our students never lost their team spirit during the entire season.

2001 Robot

The drive train was tank-tread drive, and the robot was equipped with goal grabbers, as well as arms and an elevator to grab and place multiplier balls. These arms had a high degree of articulation, but even at the bottom of the elevator, the center of gravity was relatively high. After enough falls, we decided to lose the elevator and arms, replacing them with a “toe crusher”- an arm to tip the teeter-totter to our side. We were then short enough to go under the bar, and we also had the ability to swap the teeter totter. We often grabbed two goals and balanced on the teeter totter.

2000 Robot

This year’s robot had an elevator and a bin, along with tank-tread drive train. The tank drive system was detachable to allow for quick replacement if the system failed.This drive train system allowed the robot to climb the ramp in the middle of the field. When cruising around the field, it was at the bottom of the elevator and had a low center of gravity. An intake roller in the front allowed the robot to pick up balls from the field, but the robot could also gather balls from the human players with the elevator up. We would then drive to the goal “troughs,” and using our elevators and reversing the intake roller, place balls into the goals. We could also hang using the elevator.