![]() |
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Quote:
GTR-East San Diego New York (by wording but not by spirit of your question) |
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
MSC Finals 1 had 2054 and 548 (both long) on the ends of a triple
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Quote:
I believe you were referring to: 4307 (Square) 1075 (Swerve, went up in wide orientation) 548 (Long, with weight shift) |
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Anybody remember what the Portland #8 alliance was in terms of long and wide? I want to say 2 long, 1 not sure, but I'm not sure on any of them.
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Portland was 1 long and 2 wide. 1 of the wide bots was really short, and one was a fairly full size wide bot.
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Quote:
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
I think that it is more likely that the top alliance will consist of 2 of the greatest tele-op scoring machines and an excellent defensive robot. At the highest level 2 robots can score as effectively as 3, and I would bet that the 3rd robot on the winning alliance is going to make it happen by preventing ANY balancing for the loosing (2nd place) alliance.
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Quote:
|
Re: Two wides vs Two longs
Quote:
Also at Seattle I saw both these teams practice triples. 3711 was with a wide and long and from watching them and some other alliances$@# I highly doubt many teams will succeed at triples with 2 longs. On the other hand 360 practiced with 2 very good short bots (with stingers) who balanced very easily. The bots where very equal in weight so the bridge balanced immediately without assistance. All of cd is talking about balancing with long bots, yeah it's possible but it is defiantly slower then three short bots.... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:43. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi