Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
How did the teams with alternate bumper material feel about their ability to defend (namely "friction pin") other teams?
|
Direct friction pinning is generally harder to do with lower friction bumpers, but we were still able to play effective, and in some cases more effective defense than we did last year. This was mainly due to the octagonal shape, as we we able to more easily get the front of our robot onto another robot and into a pinning position. We could also pivot and use the side of the drivetrain to block a robot from escaping.
One thing to consider for a defense robot is the opposing alliance's ability to play counter defense on it. It will actually be harder to play counter defense on a robot that has lower friction bumpers, so it isn't necessarily a bad idea to go all in on low friction bumpers. If you want to make a T-bone machine, go for the Cordura. However, there are things you can do with robot design that will make a lower friction bumper defensive robot just as or more effective than one with higher friction bumpers.
Though, to expand off of Adam's comments, a better bumper material won't be the difference between fielding a bad drivetrain and a good drivetrain. A lot of the teams doing it are chasing that last 1-5%. Making sure you prioritize drivetrain design is a better goal for most teams to focus on. That being said, it's probably easier to change you bumper material than it is to design a new drivetrain. It's just important to keep in mind there are many factors that go into building top notch drivetrains.