Quote:
Originally Posted by Anupam Goli
I firmly believe that in most cases a passive system's competitive ceiling is far lower than an active system's competitive ceiling, and thus worth the tradeoff. Will this year have that case? I guess we'll find out in 4.5 weeks.
Of course this is all put to the test when we're dealing with a lower amount of resources.
|
It will, but it'll still cost you stuff. Our team decided against an active pickup - we found that (at least the ones we were capable of manufacturing) didn't improve approach angles enough to make it worth it.
--1-2 extra motors/wheels/belts/associated hardware mounted forward will make your robot tippier.
--A few person-days of effort to prototype and attach the active device will cost you driver training and debugging time on other parts of the robot.
--If your active pickup ends up being breakable (and your pickup isn't usable without it), then it adds a single point of failure on your robot. If you lose effectiveness for 1-2 matches in a season, that brings your totes-per-match average _way_ down.
To a powerhouse team it is a no-brainer: they have ample man/womanpower and cash to make it happen. To a team that has to trade training or testing time for it or skip another mechanism, it might not be the same decision.