![]() |
Stacking robots
Does anyone have creative ideas on stacking robots?
I've seen fembots almost do it with another team. |
Re: Stacking robots
If the term "stacking" that was in the title and you mean stacking robots to get a triple balance, try searching CD-Media with the tags "frc1501." Also there is the search function. Try searching terms like "Stacking" or "Robot stacking."
|
Re: Stacking robots
this was to get more robots on the bridge
|
Re: Stacking robots
Like you said, 692 attempted it with 701. There have been plenty of stacks to get more bots on the bridge. Look at 1501 for more details on how they did it. They were like 701, but I couldn't see if they were as good shooters (I didn't watch their matches, so I can't say. Help here, anybody?).
If you're going to the CalGames offseason, or watching the webcast, you may be able to see a stack balance or two ;). |
Re: Stacking robots
701 and 2865 did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qPtIfwSN6c Although, I don't see the benefit because it was only those two on the bridge and they could have fit if they balanced normally. |
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
Spokane QF Match 1 - Failed attempt at a triple balance... We clearly needed more practice with 294. Also I think having the CG of the stacked robot that high works against you when balancing. Luckily, 294 scored enough to win that match. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglFrbbN8Ss Spokane QF Match 2 - Stacked but just a double... It seemed a better use of time to have 294 score some more balls.. unfortunately we lost by 2 points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnnBxDSLOtk Spokane QF Match 3 - Stacked but just a double again. Enough for a win and advanced to the semis, where we focused on defense to stop fender shooters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb7eKLP50uo Was it worth it to do the stacking approach? Kinda yes and no.. It didn't pay off enough to win elims like we had hoped, but it was definitely a cool thing to try and pull off. I believe it really helped us get the ID award at Spokane, which is a win in a different sort of way. I still wished we would have tried it on the Coop bridge. It would be a penalty on both alliances, but they'd offset each other. It would be a truly cooperative effort! |
Re: Stacking robots
Is it legal to have a robot begin on top of another? I know in 2007, there was a loophole that allowed alliances to score by simply stacking two dead robots on top of each other. Obviously, to get a triple balance in this years game, the bottom robot would have to be active. Is this a legal way to go for the triple?
|
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
Their stacking triple balance is well documented. I don't know if they've made updates or changes to make them reach the 3-goal or shoot from the key. With their six treaded wheels, they weren't easy to push around at the fender. |
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
2007 was a special case. The loophole was confirmed to be there by the GDC during build season, but as soon as the strategy was used, it was declared illegal. Actually, IIRC, both robots were E-stopped the second they could E-stop them, but started active. |
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
We asked Aiden Brown at the North Carolina regional this specific question. Although he couldn't seem to find an exact answer as to WHY it wouldn't be legal, (their robot would sit on our rear, and they would have an appendage touching the key to start with) he said it wouldn't be. |
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
|
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
I know I had to look up the rule before replying--I knew there was a rule, and that it had been added to an existing rule, but I didn't know the number/wording. |
Re: Stacking robots
Perhaps. We both looked at the rules (The pregame section) while discussing the legalities of it.
|
Re: Stacking robots
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:29. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi