Difference between revisions of "DEWBOT IX Caterpillar Drive"

Revision as of 14:44, 17 March 2013 (view source) MaiKangWei (talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:45, 17 March 2013 (view source) MaiKangWei (talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 2:		Line 2:
	A number of concepts were considered and evaluated.  The Caterpillar Drive approach was selected because it was perceived that:		A number of concepts were considered and evaluated.  The Caterpillar Drive approach was selected because it was perceived that:
−	:# The climb time could be relatively short, allowing significant scoring with Frisbees;	+	# The climb time could be relatively short, allowing significant scoring with Frisbees;
−	:# the climbing mechanisms would not interfere with a shooter; and	+	# the climbing mechanisms would not interfere with a shooter; and
−	:# the concept was consistent with a low center-of-mass robot.	+	# the concept was consistent with a low center-of-mass robot.
	----		----
	[[Category:Robot]][[Category:DEWBOT IX]][[Category:Drive-train]]		[[Category:Robot]][[Category:DEWBOT IX]][[Category:Drive-train]]

---

Revision as of 14:45, 17 March 2013

Achieving a 30 point climb was a key aspect of 1640's game strategy for Ultimate Ascent^SM, with a strong bias towards climbing on the pyramid outside (thereby enabling other alliance robots to also score 30 points).

A number of concepts were considered and evaluated. The Caterpillar Drive approach was selected because it was perceived that:

1. The climb time could be relatively short, allowing significant scoring with Frisbees;
2. the climbing mechanisms would not interfere with a shooter; and
3. the concept was consistent with a low center-of-mass robot.

---