pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

[O'Sancheski]

loading photo ...

[MattC9]

Does 118 now have a triple balance mechanism?

[bam-bam]

Originally Posted by MattC9

Does 118 now have a triple balance mechanism?

I'm pretty sure they do now.

If you check below 118, you can see part of its bridge mechanism blocked by a head.

And something tells me that this is the first time there was two stingers in a triple balance.

[EagleEngineer]

So when i was watching the CT regional they said that 228 could not have their stinger depolyed in the back court, because it would be taller than 60". Does this mean that in this photo 2168 is taller than 60" meaning that would be a penalty?

[AcesJames]

118 does in fact use a stinger. A lot of us at CT huddled around their pit on Thursday as we watched them re-attach their shooter, add 2 speed transmissions, swap their bridge mechanism, and add their stinger. It was quite a site to see (although I'm sure they can elaborate on that better than I can).

2168 (as far as I know) in their starting configuration is short enough to be able to drop their stinger on the opposite side of the field and still not reach the full 60". I believe that the 228 machine is a fair bit taller.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Originally Posted by bam-bam

And something tells me that this is the first time there was two stingers in a triple balance.

Sorry, Michigan did had a triple balance with two stingers in Week 2 at Waterford (67 and 469).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7629560227229/

-Clinton-

[bam-bam]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Sorry, Michigan did had a triple balance with two stingers in Week 2 at Waterford (67 and 469).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7629560227229/

-Clinton-

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- I meant both stingers deployed at the same time. From what I can remember at Waterford, only 67 deployed their stinger.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by AcesJames

2168 (as far as I know) in their starting configuration is short enough to be able to drop their stinger on the opposite side of the field and still not reach the full 60". I believe that the 228 machine is a fair bit taller.

2168 looks like they may exceed 60" total height in this picture. In the linked image of 67/469 above it appears that 469 would definitely be taller than 60" if their stinger was deployed.

If you have a stinger that makes the entire vertical height of your robot greater than 60", can you deploy it on the lane-side of your bridge without incurring a foul? Manual seems to say no.

Originally Posted by G20

Robots in contact with the carpet and/or Key on their Alliance Station end of the Court are limited to 60 in tall. Otherwise, Robots are limited to 84 in tall.
Violation: Foul; or Technical-Foul for repeated or continuous violation.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Sorry, Michigan did had a triple balance with two stingers in Week 2 at Waterford (67 and 469).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7629560227229/

-Clinton-

469 didn't have their "peg leg" at that point in time. They built it after seeing the success team 67 had.

[davepowers]

Originally Posted by bam-bam

And something tells me that this is the first time there was two stingers in a triple balance.

228 and 177 both used their stingers in the first match of their elimination round. After our second triple, Dancing Dave asked to take a look at our height, we happened to be 64 inches tall. We had already deployed a strategy to just feed 177 balls in hybrid and teleop, so removing our shooter hood was an easy fix to put us within the 60 inch limit. I was very glad to be able to pull off the triple so quickly, with the double stingers it was almost easier than a single or double.

-D

[thefro526]

Sigh, 2168 has to be one of the best machines to not win a trip to the CMP this year. Gotta feel for those guys.

Also, if memory serves me, 2168's robot is under 4' tall in the starting config so assuming their stinger is 12" or less, they are still within the 60" height parameter. *Edit, see Josh's post below*

[lnex1357]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Sigh, 2168 has to be one of the best machines to not win a trip to the CMP this year. Gotta feel for those guys.

Also, if memory serves me, 2168's robot is under 4' tall in the starting config so assuming their stinger is 12" or less, they are still within the 60" height parameter.

To clarify the discussion: After our first successful triple balance in QF 1-2, one of the referees called our total height with the stinger down into question and had the lead inspector measure us between QFs and SFs. It turns out we were beyond the 60" height restriction. Something we never thought to check and the inspector overlooked during a re-inspection, after the addition of our stinger during the practice day on Thursday. Hence you will notice during our second Triple Balance in SF 1-1 we balanced from our offensive zone side of the field. Fortunately for us it was just a simple adjustment to strategy and our whole alliance adjusted perfectly ... a great testament to all the teams and their drivers on the #1 seed alliance ... you guys are stars

[Clinton Bolinger]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

469 didn't have their "peg leg" at that point in time. They built it after seeing the success team 67 had.

469 had their peg leg/stinger since Waterford but never had a need to use it. The redesigned it for Detroit, so that it would go out the back.

-Clinton-

[nikeairmancurry]

469 had it off to the side at waterford and used it a few times going up the co-op bridge.

[cj3958]

I believe the "transitional stage" allows you to be taller than 60" when you have a 'stinger' deployed. The head ref at boston talked to us about that and we were able to convince him otherwise; however its only a 3pt penalty even if you do violate the 60" rule.