@@nerdspark That would be fantastic, I will need to make sure to check which division you are on once it is time for states. I wish you guys luck at your second district competition!
@@quinnoneill255 by placing the battery on the bottom, it allows complete access to our top surface of the robot. This allows separate design teams to work completely independently without worry of developing mechanisms that may interfere with each other. On top of that, of CG is incredibly low. Lastly, our team members are not afraid of a little bit of work to change a battery.
@@nerdspark not saying you were afraid of a little work in my personal experience a battery that is easy to access takes that little bit of stress off awesome robot btw good luck with your season
Having all the electrical and electronics mounted and facing down, open to the field is not something I would personally recommend, too many opportunities for random junk getting in there and pulling wires out or severing them etc. I’d consider a removable aluminum or lexan cover over all of that, unless I just can’t see it in the video where I have it stopped. Typically there’s a solid belly pan and the electrical all facing up as low as it can be mounted and well protected by the superstructure of the mechanical components. Other than that this is a reeaaaalllly good looking robot that also looks very capable of the game objectives, kudos! Also, congratulations on your excellent results at FIM Jackson, good luck with the rest of your 2023 season!
All electrical components are covered, RIO is well protected. And by facing downward, debris tends not to fall into the any components. We've run 10's of hours and jumped our share of the charge station. So far, no electrical issues at all.
@@nerdspark thanks for the reply, it’s definitely an interesting departure from traditional and worthy of consideration if everything is well protected! I’ve never seen a robot built this way but I have seen lots of failures from exposed electrical, electronics, and pneumatics which had me concerned. Nice out of the box thinking by your team 🙂
@@sjsomething4936 My team did the same in 2020, the design was great, but we only played 1 event... Although the only thing that bothered us was that if we ever wanted to change some parts mid comp (which luckily didn't happened) it would take lots of time, compared to the normal electronics mounting. This is a nice design, and if it's well protected like they say it is, It should be working well in comp
I am fairly sure that they have a number of mentors who have worked with other local teams in the past. Having some knowledgeable guidance when establishing a new team is very useful to get things off the ground quickly.
If you mean we don't suck, then yes, we've worked very hard to make sure we do not come off like your typical rookie team. All but our lead mentor have not mentored an FRC team before, and only 4 out of 25 team members did FRC a previous year. I believe by FIRST's definition we're a rookie team. But we have no intention of acting or performing like a rookie team.
@@howardbartlett3419 I mean the budget, the build quality, the design. Making mistake is part of the process of building a new team. I have no idea how a team of 25 teenagers with no previous experience in CAD, cnc machining, and building robots in general can build something like this. The only thing missing is a high quality software subteam. What i mean, this is probably not a "normal" rookie team, who is just a couple FLL kids who dreamed of creating their own FRC team. This team has such a high budget, and knowledge of 5+ years teams. This isn't a regular rookie team. They are "mentor" team. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings or something, but no way kids learned that in a year. From 0 experience. And no way they got that money, without any previous achievements to show. (maybe those 25 kids are genius, and maybe they all have loaded parents, if so, congrats. But I don't believe this is the case here)
@@user-hl8dz6it8u That is making a lot of assumptions about a team you have never met. Granted, you could be correct, but with all of the information that is being put out by teams like 1678 (check out their strategic design videos, fantastic info!) and the Open Alliance build logs, it is perfectly possible (albeit still quite challenging) for a team to prepare for and build a robot like this. I agree that these guys are the outliers among rookie teams, but I don't think it is fair to immediately accuse them of things because they are "too good". Just doesn't seem very "graciously professional" to me. Also on the funding side of things, Michigan as a state does a fantastic job of funding young FRC teams. If I recall, rookie teams in the state receive an additional grant (on top of normal FRC grants) of around $7k. The state even gives a $1,500 coaching stipend for each team to thank the coaches/mentors for enabling the program. There are also additional grants and funding opportunities all over the place for teams, as well as a host of businesses in the area who are happy to provide a few thousand to an FRC team to slap a logo on the robot. There is a reason that Michigan has more teams than anywhere else in the world, simply because the barrier for entry is so low here.
@@user-hl8dz6it8u someones sniffing some hard copium, kids cannot learn fast or have previous experience outside of FRC... your logic is flawed and I suggest you think about what you are saying before you accuse a team of being a mentor built team. just because something is incredible, doesn't mean it's not true..
