Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

No it didn't.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

I remember at Northern Lights the portcullis being sent up so hard that a bar that I didn't even know was there came onto the field.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

Did it not split? or was it beyond normal gameplay. If it was beyond normal gameplay, what causes it to break?

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

There is a bar zip tied onto the top bar of the portcullis to weigh it down and offset the strength of the springs.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

https://youtu.be/_lu2J4Cp7dU?t=1m16s

Is that not normal gameplay? Or is the word split what is wrong?

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

That's not entirely accurate-- here's a couple of pictures from the break at Northern Lights. As you can see, it's very clearly a break-- not the polycarbonate 'breaking free.'

Edit: I had the wrong context when I responded to this, and I don't think this is highly relevant to the post I quoted. It is relevant to the general discussion of defense durability though so I'm leaving it here.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

Speaking of Duluth (while apologizing for going off-topic for a moment)...

Congratulations, Woodie Flowers Finalist. If your nomination didn't mention all of the support you also provide here on CD, it should have.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

A split implies the lexan actually cracked. What you are seeing is the drawbridge acting as designed. I'm pretty sure having teams deal with the two pieces of lexan was not an intentional added challenge, it's just how the drawbridge is designed.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

Based on what I've seen so far, aside from the low bar flaps being torn up and the cheval de frise at Palmetto, the major structures are generally not prone to severe damage. There are lot of scuffs of course and they become dislodged, resulting in match halts or complete match replays. These field elements are remarkably durable considering the amount of force and sharp edges they regularly endure. At Waterbury, there was a robot that accidentally hung from the high goal (yes, I know, a foul and doesn't count as scaling). The tower didn't seem to be any worse for wear from it.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

At the Greater Toronto central regional, the sally port lost the lexan on on the supports several times. That defense really got torn up. It will be interesting to see the state of the defenses in the later regionals.

Re: Structural Integrity of Competition Defenses?
 

In Waterbury we started seeing problems with the pegboard s-hooks that we were told to use, due to the tight clearance of the drilled holes for the pins designated for that purpose, aka they wouldn't push in. We saw it mostly on the Rock wall, then more on the other defenses after they were switched into a spot vacated by the Rock wall. Those robots that didn't adjust their designs to accommodate the rock wall height were the ones that slammed up & over. Most others with Pneumatic tires flowed over. There was a lot of force generated to cause the damages. Except for the mounting design, I thought the defenses were built fairly well. By Sunday morning we had destroyed all the s-hooks & switched back to the pins, which now fit (loosely) into the holes. Now the rock wall started jumping up. We finally gaff-taped across the front/back of the defense to the floor mount & that worked. This is not a solution, just a band-aid.
The low goal curtain was damaged many time & we taped them back together. We got more curtains made up from the school sewing class with a slightly smoother material & they lasted longer.
I have a few suggestions to correct the problems with defenses lifting up, but there is not enough down time or personnel in between weekends to fix them. Obviously this is occurring throughout competitions & I hope they come up with a solution