Robotics

Mr. Russell

NASCAR Pit-Stop Challenge

60 Points

Introduction:

NASCAR is one of the most popular sports in America with millions of viewers tuning in every week to watch a race. The sport involves expert vehicle design and maintenance requiring expert pit crews with lightning-fast pit stops in order to get the car back out on the race track. Precious seconds lost in pit stops can mean the difference between winning and losing.

Your Challenge:

Your challenge is to design, build, test and implement a competition robot that will navigate an oval track in the classroom. Qualifying heats will determine your vehicle’s position for race day with the highest seed getting the inside position on the track. Heats are individual events while all 4 robots in a class will compete against each other on race day. Heats will consist of 4 laps around the track. The NASCAR race will consist of 20 laps around the track with a mandatory pit stop at your designated location on lap 10 where your pit crew must change two wheels by two different pit crew members.

Duration:

  • 12-16 class periods followed by heats and race day.

Rules of Engagement:

  • Cars are forbidden from forcing another vehicle off of the track or interfering with its progress in any way.
  • Drivers are assigned to run their bots from their team’s pit location.
  • Pit crews must watch from their team’s pit location.
  • A race announcer is required for each heat and race.
  • All disputes will be moderated by the race judge (Mr. Russell).

Constraints:

  • Material restrictions: motors (3), wheels (4), 12-tooth gears (2), long axles in excess of 4 inches (0)
  • Designs must accept one of four shared cortex units without nuts. The cortex must simply seat over four long screws poking up through the chassis that are fastened in place.
  • No “weapons” are allowed.
  • Other constraints may be applied at the discretion of the race judge.

Grading:

  • Each member of the team will receive the same grade. You MUST make sure everyone is actively engaged in the project or else the team grade will be affected. If you are having trouble getting someone to work, you are expected to try to resolve it internally. If these efforts fail, please bring this to my attention so that alternative arrangements can be made for that group member.
  • See rubric on reverse side
  • Extra credit will be awarded to any team that races with a compound gear system or a steering system. The gearing system may not utilize 12-tooth gears (10 points each).

Project Rubric

60 points

Component / Sophisticated
(15 points awarded) / Developing
(10 points awarded) / Insufficient
(0 points awarded)
Teamwork
(15 points) / The team worked well together to achieve objectives. Each member contributed in a valuable way to the project. All data sources indicated a high level of mutual respect and collaboration. / The team worked well together most of the time, with only a few occurrences of communication breakdown or failure to collaborate when appropriate. Members were mostly respectful of each other. / Team did not collaborate or communicate well. Some members would work independently, without regard to objectives or priorities. A lack of respect and regard was frequently noted.
Contribution
(15 points) / All requirements and objectives are identified, evaluated and completed. The deliverable is based on stated criteria, analysis and constraints. / All requirements are identified and evaluated but some objectives are not completed. The deliverable is reasonable; further analysis of some of the alternatives or constraints may have led to a different recommendation. / Many requirements and objectives are not identified, evaluated and/or completed. The deliverable is unacceptable; considerations are not analyzed and other factors were ignored or incompletely analyzed.
Subject Knowledge
(15 points) / The deliverable demonstrated knowledge of the course content by integrating major and minor concepts into the response. The deliverable also demonstrated evidence of extensive research effort and a depth of thinking about the topic / The deliverable demonstrated knowledge of the course content by integrating major concepts into the response. The deliverable demonstrated evidence of limited research effort and/or initial of thinking about the topic. / The deliverable did not demonstrate knowledge of the course content, evidence of the research effort or depth of thinking about the topic.
Supporting Materials (15 points) / The report and supporting materials are well organized and clearly written. The underlying logic was clearly articulated and easy to follow. Words were chosen that precisely expressed the intended meaning and supported reader comprehension. Concept drawings reflect excellent thought and effort. Detail drawings are of excellent construction. Write-up enhanced and clarified the presentation of ideas. Sentences were grammatical and free from errors. Report is type-written, is neat and free of damage, and is submitted with all materials attached. / The deliverable was organized and clearly written for the most part. In some areas the logic and/or flow of ideas were difficult to follow. Words were well chosen with some minor expectations. Concept drawings reflect acceptable thought and effort Detail drawings are of acceptable construction but are lack neatness. Sentences were mostly grammatical and/or only a few spelling errors were present but they did not hinder the reader. Report is type-written and is submitted with all materials attached has evidence of poor handling (wrinkled) / The deliverable lacked overall organization. The reader had to make considerable effort to understand the underlying logic and flow of ideas. Concept drawings do not reflect thought or effort. Detail drawings are unacceptable – lack neatness or missing required information. Grammatical and spelling errors made it difficult for the reader to interpret the text in places. Report is not type-written, does not have all materials attached, and reflects poor handling (wrinkles, torn, etc.)