Quote:
Originally Posted by akoscielski3
I think they are just saying it will be tougher to achieve. Plus keep in mind that 4334 was a lot smaller than normal wide bots. On friday at GTR west 1114, 2056, and 3161 tried triple on the practice field. 3161 is a normal wide bot. They got it but after a fair amout of attempts. Another note in GTR west was that 2056, and 188 denied 1241 because they both didnt want a long bot with them. You can see how good of a choice that was after 2056 won with a triple.
|
I know 4334 was much smaller, but I also know that they DID triple with 2852 (I think... whoever DM high Voltage is) in practice in prep for Worlds. I also know that 1241's bridge balancer was untested at GTRE, or that it was deemed unreliable enough to not risk a shot at a regional title (the Coop almost-triple on Newton proves as much). If teams have good and *proven* stingers, then long bots can definitely hang with long bots. And I'd be surprised if the majority of competitive long bots don't have a stinger.
Triple balancing is full of risks to begin with. See 2826+67+4143. Here we have probably the best balancer in FIRST consistently fail to triple with one long bot (sorry to rub it in, huge respect to that whole alliance). It's a risky enough maneuver that not a single triple was attempted on Einstein (comm issues didn't help either). People seem to be discounting a long+long+wide balance because it's too risky. I'm just saying that in many cases, especially with these robots, wide+wide+long or wide+wide+wide is risky as well.