Re: Fork type End Defectors & Ball acquisition
 

Our biggest problem was seeing the forks on the other side of the field and smashing them against the wall. I think it may be easier to lift the ball if we make our forks longer and picking up around our home wall.

Re: Fork type End Defectors & Ball acquisition
 

We have a set of forks that have the same radius as the ball at the height we grab it. A pneumatic cylinder opens them and when the button is released it remains closed around the ball. Our forks are made of carbon fiber and we have had them broken twice so far. (we have spares) Once we ran them into the end wall (in Portland) and another time another team rammed them (I think it was not intentional). They are pretty sturdy and they have a shock absorber of our own design that allows them to flex when hit...

Our third claw (we call it the talon) comes down from the top and traps the ball in a three point grip. It is quite effective at holding the ball.

The entire lift mechanism tilts back when we have the ball and keeps the ball centered on our robot for traveling to the scoring quadrant.

The talon is also powered by a pneumatic cylinder.

The third appendage is our kicker which we affectionately call "the tongue"
which gives the ball a small kick at the top of the overpass allowing us to quickly hurdle.

We had some problems in Portland but re-designed two pieces and now we ar working pretty well.

With the curved claws we can pick up the ball without having to push it against the wall.

Re: Fork type End Defectors & Ball acquisition
 

team 1086 just uses straight PVC tube, our "twin" 384 put a bend into the end of their forks which prevents the ball from rolling out once they get possesion of it... we did notice 103's brushes and plan on testing a version of these once we get to championship... but overall we havent had too big of a problem lifting the ball, we just take it nice and slow while lining up with the ball, so we dont bump it out of position.

Re: Fork type End Defectors & Ball acquisition
 

1885 Used Straight forks and 2 arced "paws" that come down over the ball. The arcs extend over the top crest of the ball to keep it from coming out the front, and they are angled sideways to keep them from coming out the sides. They are actuated to "pounce" on a big ball o' yarn via a 4" pneumatic piston. (edit) Capturing the ball via this method actually worked very well; we had issues with a weak motor on the lift that prevented us from hurdling well, but that will be fixed in Philly.

We had a huge problem with our forks at VCU because they were, by design, supposed to stick out the front of the bot for the entirety of the match. However whenever we ran into the wall all of the impact force was transferred up to the forlift arm mounts. By the end of Friday, all of the welds on that mount were completely broken and any chance of hurdling was practically gone.

We have plans to upgrade this in Philly with a 2" wide 1/8" thick lexan piece that we bend around to make a semi-circle. Prototyping it suggests that the lexan may wear out in the course of the matches, so we're going to work on an upgrade for that before Atlanta. The lexan should absorb any wall impact the forklift receives instead of transferring it to the mount points, which is the goal for Philly. The inspiration came from 2106 (Junkyard Dogs) at VCU.