Quote:
Originally Posted by jamierose
They also had the same shooter design as the one we had for our first two regionals. We then made a slightly more powerful one for the championship. I don't know how much faster the new one is, but if we could shoot 7 cycles at our first regional I'm sure they have the capability to as well.
|
Not quite true.
As the mentor assigned to the shooter i feel i have to step in here. 1310's shooter has always been very similar to 610's, and all the other teams with 90* curved shooters, however, your post is significantly inaccurate.
1310 always had a shooter in that orientation, and had at least 2 mini cims. Our prototype had 3 minis, and was WAY overkill. 610 actually flipped they're shooter to match ours as the full court shots hit more of the goal that way. 610 also added a second minicim. We worked with 610, building our shooters with insight from the other team, but neither of us copied each other. we both prototyped our shooters in private, and only saw each others 3 days before bag day.
At that time, we were using a 6" colson, had 3 mini cims, belt drive with a 1:1.3 ratio and plates made of 1/8 aluminium. 610's shooter was a mirrored version of ours, made of polycarb and UHMW, with 1 minicim, and the magical 6" pneumatic tire from McmasterCarr. When i saw that tire, I immediately saw its advantages, and realized we would need to make a new shooter that was wider to accommodate the wheel. Andymark had released the 6" plastic hub at this point (610 made they're own) so we knew what the next version would be.
While 610 bagged they're shooter with the robot, (IIRC, correct me if im wrong) we kept developing. Apart from widening the gap between the plates, using thinner aluminium to save weight, and changing to a 3 plate design for ease of maintenance, the geometry and design of our shooter stayed the same. With the pneumatic tire, we instantly saw a more consistent full court, with more accuracy, and the drop to 2 mini cims didn`t affect our shot speed or rate significantly. Before champs, we tested 9 different backing materials and found one that gave us an amazing grouping. Besides the odd anomaly disk, we were basically able to shoot into a shoe box at the full court distance.
In total we made 3 full shooters, culminating in the shooter we have today, an 85%+ accurate Fullcourt with a 1 second frequency, and a comparable shot rate to 610 up close, about 2 disks per second. We had the same motors, same wheel, same belt system, same gear ratio, same orientation, and the same PID system.
The only difference was hopper and hammer design. 610 had an internal hammer, catching the inside edge of the Frisbee, and a detent piston that stopped premature firing of disks. we had an external hammer, pushing on the outside of the disks, with 3 zip ties as our detent.
Our shooter at waterloo was the setup 610 changed to for champs. (aside from the differences above)
Sorry about the wall of text, but i wanted to clarify that we did not copy 610, and 610 did not copy us, we both ended up at the shooters we have now due to separate development, with similar goals, while learning from the systems each other had.
As far as picking the top 3, (i should do that instead of just derailing the thread) I choose to pick 610, 1334 and 1241. All of us in Ontario know that 1114 and 2056 are going to be the #1 and #2 in Ontario, if not the world, so im ignoring them completely
I want to share the love with some other Ontario teams.
610 was the fastest pure cycler in Ontario, 1334 had the fastest climb and dump combo in first (1114 could climb faster, but if you add the time for the dump, 1334 is faster by a second or so at IRI) and 1241 had the most dedicated, practiced drive team, and an amazing coach.
TLDR:
why should i make a summary, either read the post, or move on, your choice.