The most interesting zone 1 robot in the world.

[JohnFogarty]

My team is NOT going to employ this strategy. Seriously.

Last night it was brought to the idea table when we were done working on important things. That it is possible to truss shot passively from zone 1.

This robot or BOX has a 35 to 45 angle trampoline built into the frame up to a height of 5'. The human player inbounds the ball by throwing the ball directly at the trampoline. Thus arcing it IMMEDIATELY across the field and over the truss just by the ball bouncing off the said trampoline. You have 10 points right there.

[mwtidd]

My team is NOT going to employ this strategy. Seriously.

Last night it was brought to the idea table when we were done working on important things. That it is difficult, but possible to score the ball or just points passively from zone 1. This robot DOESN'T EVEN NEED WHEELS.

This robot or BOX has a 35 to 45 angle trampoline built into the frame up to a height of 5'. The human player inbounds the ball by throwing the ball directly at the trampoline. Thus arcing it IMMEDIATELY across the field and over the truss just by the ball bouncing off the said trampoline. You have 10 points right there already. Some interesting math could be done, and some very talented human player could get good enough at throwing the ball at this 150 pound trampoline robot that the rebound of the ball COULD travel over the truss across the field into the goal for 20 points every time he did it.

I read back through the rules. This idea and or strategy....is entirely legal.

I've been calling this type of robot a punter. I'm a huge fan of it.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Scores only count if they're shot from the same side of the field as the goals.

[BigJ]

While I personally might be on board counting it as POSSESSION, I bet some more conservative rule-readers would not count that as a posession.

Relevant quotes:

... The following criteria define POSSESSION : ... C. “launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), ...


Examples of BALL interaction that are not POSSESSION are ... B. “deflecting” (a single hit to or being hit by a BALL that bounces or rolls off the ROBOT).

Just because a trampoline surface stretches and deflects a lot more than say, a lexan sheet, doesn't mean it should magically count as a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT.

[Boe]

My team is NOT going to employ this strategy. Seriously.

Last night it was brought to the idea table when we were done working on important things. That it is difficult, but possible to score the ball or just points passively from zone 1. This robot DOESN'T EVEN NEED WHEELS.

This robot or BOX has a 35 to 45 angle trampoline built into the frame up to a height of 5'. The human player inbounds the ball by throwing the ball directly at the trampoline. Thus arcing it IMMEDIATELY across the field and over the truss just by the ball bouncing off the said trampoline. You have 10 points right there already. Some interesting math could be done, and some very talented human player could get good enough at throwing the ball at this 150 pound trampoline robot that the rebound of the ball COULD travel over the truss across the field into the goal for 20 points every time he did it.

I read back through the rules. This idea and or strategy....is entirely legal.

From 3.1.4 in the game manual
A BALL is considered SCORED in an ALLIANCE’S GOAL if

a ROBOT causes one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S BALLS to cross completely and remain completely through the opening(s) of one (1) of their ALLIANCE’S GOALS without intervening human contact,
the ALLIANCE ROBOT last in contact with the BALL was entirely between the TRUSS and their ALLIANCE’S HIGH GOALS, and
the BALL is not in contact with any ROBOT from that ALLIANCE.

Good idea, but the trampoline bot could not score into the high goal. Also without wheels you cannot get over to the inbound zone.

[JohnFogarty]

I knew I missed/forgot something. So scoring in the goal isn't possible/legal.
Plus not having wheels is a very stupid choice to begin with. So I edited my first post.

Still.... I think a passive truss shot employing this method is legal.

[bduddy]

I wouldn't call it a possession after the team update. And, even if it was legal, that would have to be quite a throw to bounce all the way into the goal!

[Jay O'Donnell]

I knew I missed/forgot something. So scoring in the goal isn't possible/legal.
Plus not having wheels is a very stupid choice to begin with. So I edited my first post.

Still.... I think a passive truss shot employing this method is legal.

Another thing to keep in mind would be that you would have to either start in the goalie zone or start in the white zone and not be able to score a ball in auto. Also if the set up would be in the goalie zone another thing to keep in mind would be the angle at which the trampoline is in relation to the human player. If the trampoline was parallel to the alliance wall, you're going to lose distance in how far you can get the ball down the field.

[JohnFogarty]

You start in the auto zone. Then you drive over and park next to/near the wall where your human player inbounds the ball. This could be your teleop cycle strategy. You could have built a shooter for auto onto this robot, and then of course there are the 2 ball autonomous robots.

The main idea of this thread is...are passive truss shots possible/going to be a thing.

[themccannman]

Unless your trampoline is in motion when the ball hits it, it is considered deflection and not possession. Cool idea, but really only executable by a robot with an active mechanism.