Thread: FRC T-bone-ing and Hexagonal drive
View Single Post
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-12-2015, 14:49
nuclearnerd's Avatar
nuclearnerd nuclearnerd is offline
Speaking for myself, not my team
AKA: Brendan Simons
FRC #5406 (Celt-X)
Team Role: Engineer
  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 439
nuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud ofnuclearnerd has much to be proud of
Re: FRC T-bone-ing and Hexagonal drive
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay View Post
I don't want this post to leave teams thinking that if they build a hexagonal drivetrain they'll miraculously be better robots when they still can't handle the game object efficiently.
Not to mention that if a hexagonal drive base proves to have a huge advantage (I haven't worked the numbers, but I'm not convinced), teams will develop "anti-anti-t-boning" features. A gap in the front bumper for instance would allow any defensive robot to T-bone a hexagonal robot nearly as well as a square robot.
Last edited by nuclearnerd : 14-12-2015 at 15:00.
Reply With Quote