Robots
2015
| Name: | Tailspin |
| Dimensions: | 38.5″ L x 30.5″ W x 37″ H |
| Weight: | 78 lbs |
| Concept: | This year we built a simple, yet robust robot that allows us to stack totes from the feeder station and do a Coopertition stack. |
| Features: |
|
2014
| Name: | Skyhammer |
| Dimensions: | 27″ W x 28.5″ L x 53.5″ H |
| Weight: | 118 lbs |
| Concept: | Early in the season, we identified key features as being able to shoot, pick up, catch, and easily pass balls. We wanted each of these features to function independently in order to still have a competitive robot even if one of these features did not work properly, but still wanted to have a cohesive robot design that didn’t have redundant components. Thus, we chose to integrate all key components into a single assembly that can function even if one component fails. The end result is a simple robot that can reliable execute game tasks. We also wanted the option of having the different methods of scoring available to us in the event that one method works better than the others. |
| Features: |
|
2013
| Name: | Siverbolt |
| Dimensions: | 29.75″W x 26.25″L x 28″H |
| Weight: | 105 lbs |
| Concept: | Shortly after the 2013 Kickoff, 604 quickly recognized that the robot needed to quickly score Frisbees and reload from both the ground and feeder stations. With the emphasis on accurate scoring, every shot needed to be taken quickly and as accurately as possible, regardless of the position on the field or when under heavy defense. The robot needed to be short enough to maneuver under the pyramid to pickup frisbees during autonomous. Silverbolt is able to accomplish all of these with a camera tracking system to nearly make 100% of all shots. In addition, Silverbolt a 120 degree vertically rotatable shooter to adjust to the optimal position to score. Furthermore, Silverbolt has a low mounted shooter to fit underneath the pyramid and also has the ability to hang at the first level. |
| Features: |
|
2012
| Name: | Sureshot |
| Dimensions: | 27″W x 36″L x 59″H |
| Weight: | 118 lbs |
| Concept: | Our team recognized early on in the season that with the limited number of balls on the field, acquiring balls quickly and making every shot count would be very important. These shots also need to be taken quickly without needing much time to line up, even if the robot is under heavy defense. Furthermore, a low center of gravity was desired for easier bump traversal and bridge balancing. With a full-width pickup, high speed elevator, and a software-automated turret, our robot achieves all these criteria and is able to make close range shots quickly with near 100% accuracy, even under heavy defense. |
| Features: |
|
2011
| Name: | Barracuda |
| Dimensions: | 28″W x 38″L x 60″H |
| Weight: | 120 lbs |
| Concept: | Deciding that scoring on all three levels of the rack would be crucial, our team also noted that the minibot race would change the outcome of many matches. We decided to build a robot which would have the ability to do both using a telescoping arm and a spring powered minibot deployment. By keeping the pivot point for the arm low, we are able to pick up and score on both sides. A roller gripper allows manipulation of the tube while being possessed, preparing for scoring on the rack. |
| Features: |
|
| Code: | GitHub |
2010
| Name: | OverKill |
| Dimensions: | 27″W x 37″L x 16″H |
| Weight: | 120 lbs |
| Concept: | Our team decided that the ability to go over the bump would be important in the game. Although going under the tunnel would be difficult (due to the careful alignment involved), we decided to build the robot so that it could drive under the tunnel if we needed to, both as a way to force us to keep the center of gravity low as well as to give us the option of going under the tunnel the one time it may be useful. To maintain maneuverability as well as go over the bump easily, we chose an eight-wheel-drive design.A surgical tubing powered kicker, reloaded by a pneumatic cylinder, was simple to design and implement, and has less points for failure. It allows us to kick the ball into the goals from almost anywhere on the field.Finally, because the robot would be very short relative to its weight, we were able to strengthen parts of the robot where, in previous years, we would not have the weight to do so. The result is an extremely robust design. |
| Features: |
|
| Code: | GitHub |
2009
| Name: | Unnamed |
| Dimensions: | 27″W x 36″L x 58″H |
| Weight: | 110 lbs |
| Concept: | Early on in the design process, our team recognized two general design approaches to the 2009 Challenge: A “dumper” that could unload a large number of balls quickly, but only in one direction, or a “turreted shooter” capable of scoring at various angles, but would be slower and potentially less accurate.Our final design was a hybrid of the two; we combined the throughput of the dumper with the flexibility of the turret. The end result was a robot that could score within a 180-degree arc from the front of the robot, and do this at 7 balls/second. |
| Features: |
|
2008
| Name: | Unnamed |
| Dimensions: | 27″W x 37″L x 56″H |
| Weight: | 120 lbs |
| Features: |
|
| 3D Model | Here |
2007
| Name: | Unnamed |
| Dimensions: | 28″W x 38″L x 48″H |
| Weight: | 115 lbs |
| Features: |
|
2006
| Name: | Unnamed |
| Dimensions: | 28″W x 38″L x 60″H |
| Weight: | 120 lbs |
| Features: |
|
2005
| Name: | Unnamed |
| Dimensions: | 28″W x 38″L x 60″H |
| Weight: | 120 lbs. |
| Features: |
|
