![]() |
Passive vs Active Gearing
I've seen a lot of passive boxes around on cd. Are there any advantages to an active mechanism for gear placing? The way I see it, it's a very small time gain for a lot of effort, but there may be other advantages.
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
we are using an active mechanism, so the gear actually gets far enough on the peg to be lifted without falling off.
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
As an active gear team, I do not regret having the extra complexity one bit! With our mechanism we hardly need to stop at the peg instead of waiting for the pilot to pull it completely clear of the mechanism. It was a lot of work, but worth it. :cool:
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Active manipulators will save time every time but how much time they save really won't be determined till competition and it's all affected by the pilot and how aware they are of a robot being at the lift peg.
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
The area that gears are placed is not a safe zone. A clever driver could probably hit a robot at the right time to knock a gear off the lift.
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
We have an active gear placer, mostly to get the gear closer to the shaft collar end of the peg. If we have a team which is removing gears from pegs, we can remain in place to protect the gear, as the peg will be reaching into our frame perimeter, but will have "clear sky" overhead for a lift (We're pushing the gear on the left and right sides.)
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Quote:
There's also a good chance teams will attempt to strand defenders on the legs between the lifts ;). |
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Quote:
If the team's objective is to score 4-6 gears per match the time benefits compound twice as much! Suddenly a few seconds per cycle add up to the time needed to climb, score some fuel, or perform a defensive play. Advantages I see: -Robustness in placing gear/maximized misalignment capability -Speed in placing gear (1-10s per gear, depending on what else the pilots are doing) -No need to coordinate with pilot -Improved auto reliability and/or ability to do more than a gear in auto without relying on a pilot -Potential to be part of a 3-gear auto -Some mechanism and packaging advantages (it is really helpful to not need a slot for the peg going through part of the robot) |
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Yet the average difference in alliance score can be (2 to 3 per match for 3rd bot) a 55% chance of getting the 4th rotor vs (4 to 6 for 3rd bot) a 97% chance of getting the 4th rotor. That is massive. Probabilistic models were created at www.getguestimate.com. I added a link to my signature. |
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Passive or active, there is always the curse of drive station 2.
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Quote:
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Quote:
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
I'm going to agree with the statement that the tradeoffs in creating an active mechanism does not seem like it will be worth the small amount of time saved except maybe at the extreme high performance level.
The main issue with a passive mechanism that seems to be mentioned is time for the pilot to notice and pull the gear. While this may add an additional half to full second in the time the pilot takes to physically pull up the lift, I think that the expectation that the pilots will be too busy to see or be able to respond to the passive gearing robot is overstated. Pilots will be focused on the match. Pilots will pull up the gears from incoming robots before placing and turning the ones on the ship. And of course pilots can tend to the passive gear bots before pulling up the gears from the active robots. The only situation I can see where a reasonable pilot would not be at the lift the moment the passive gear bot gets there is if three passive gearing robots all get to the airship at the same time. That being said, I can see an active mechanism having a benefit if it is easier to integrate into the design or more space efficient. Personally I feel that the time to design and the additional point of failure that results from an active mechanism is just not worth the few seconds you will save each match. |
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
Our gear transport is passive. I could see where the argument could be made that you waste a few moments of time waiting for the pilot to lift the gear out, but since our only event this season will be week 1 we aren't too worried about that detail.
Quote:
|
Re: Passive vs Active Gearing
I'm actually more interested in seeing how many teams have active systems for retrieving the Gear, not placing it.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:38. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi