Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Why not square?

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Do you think there's going to be a lot of blocked shots this year? The trajectory to hit the goal is almost straight up in the air so I would be surprised if anyone was able to make an effective shot blocker.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Remember that the field side openings of the hoppers and loading stations are ~1" over 2 ft off the carpet. Anyone using open-topped ball storage will have to use the wide dimensions if they want fuel to be able to just be dumped in.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

We went with the short configuration because the feeder slots, low goal, and gear spikes are all less then or close to 2 ft. of the ground. So because our strategy used minimal fuel we wouldn't have been using the extra foot of height for ball storage. We couldn't come up with anything we would put above the 2 ft. mark so short it is.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

R03. I guess you could be small enough to fit both sets of criteria.

Haven't decided yet, but more likely tall. Our gear retriever would benefit from us being able to go a bit over 2'. One of our stretch goals is to be able to gather fuel and dump them either into the low goal or (better) into an alliance partner shooter emulating a hopper, which means we'd need to be over 2' tall. Being tall doesn't hurt the climb, either.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Not so fast. (Removing 7" from length and width to account for bumpers and 6" from height for drive train/electrical)

29x33x18= 17,226 in3
23x25x30= 17,250 in3

They are the same.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

dont need to subtract from the height but yes they are equivalent.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Actually you do:

a) drive train / electrical has to go somewhere, so including them would be inaccurate

b) each vertical inch for the wide base robot nets more volume than the tall robot, so the 6 inches hurts the short robot more.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

For my team, the robot configuration is dependent on strategy. If they wanted to pick up gears/dump fuel, then the taller configuration is advantageous. If shooting in the high goal is what they end up wanting to do, there are more mechanisms requiring more volume in the robot, so wide would seem advantageous.

Important things to consider for either design:
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
Don't forget about space for electronics, battery, and pneumatics. How is accessibility impacted.
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
would you like to be able to extend past your bumpers? perhaps for intake
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
If you intend on having a floor intake, the wider the better.
.
.
.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Obviously you're not going to get the whole robot volume as a hopper. They were calculating the volume difference between the 2 orientations when accounting for bumpers. Subtracting from the height didn't do anything to show one was more than the other, it just confuses people because they will see 18 and 30 and not 24 and 36.

We don't need to add confusion to this by arbitrarily picking different dimensions than what is given in the rule book "because the drive train and electronics have to go somewhere".

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

We're going with the wide volume in order to have more room for a floor intake. With a 27.25x29.25 wide bot we can get some decent extension from an intake.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

Ok; we'll do it your way.

29x33x24= 22,968 in3 = 13.29 ft3
23x25x36= 20,700 in3 = 11.98 ft3

Now they're different. Subtracting the drive train matters.

Re: Wide vs. Tall
 

You could use the tall dimensions and still be short, or you could have a open slot in the side to allow the balls to be dumped in, while still placing other mechanisms above the 2 ft level.


Yes, which is why you shouldn't subtract it. One configuration provides extra volume between the drive components. Using this volume wisely can allow for more ball storage in the volume above the drive train.