|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Quote:
Someone get these teams some better drivers ![]() |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
It really depends on the game. It's true, this year was difficult to avoid being T-boned as most robots were incapable of driving right by the human player station without stopping and successfully getting the ball. Mixed with that and the fact that it's hard to move and pass the ball, it was one of the better years for t-boning, but still, t-boning is not what I would consider a very effective defensive strategy most years.
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Quote:
![]() Quote:
), I'll be the one to inform you that that is a very dangerous and mostly incorrect statement to make. |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Quote:
A good driver should be able to avoid defense, yes, but a good defensive driver should be able to get a t-bone or two. |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
If tbones were rare and could be easily avoided by good drivers you would not see teams like 254,971,973,148,1114,118,1730,33 and countless other elite teams dedicating engineering hours, money and weight to mechanical aids to get out of pins.
This year we were caught in pins constantly and it slowed us down significantly while simultaneously wearing down our wheels. Often less high scoring teams don't face the same level of defense as their higher scoring counterparts so their robots weaknesses are never exposed. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Wouldn't a hexagonal shape limit how close you can get to the outside walls of the field? I'd imagine if you skim the wall, you would end up being spun in some direction.
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Quote:
I agree that tbones are very common and drivers should be prepared for them, but I don't think I've ever seen a team make a mechanism specifically to break pins. Last edited by evanperryg : 21-08-2014 at 07:16. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
Quote:
FRC 118- Drop down omni wheels FRC 971 - Unique chassis shape just 3 off the top of my head |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
I believe 1986 had a drop down omni wheel up front also.
|
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
As well as a large number of teams using lower friction bumper materials, off the top of my head I can think of 971, 67, 1678, 1717, 254, 148, 1114, and 2056.
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
In the 67 case I recall it was at least partially for their intake based on what my brother said.
|
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
My students have spent a chunk of their summer designing a hex chassis 8WD because of this very problem; we saw lots of t-bones, and we contributed to a fair number of them.
We finished 3D printing the narrow/wide wheels this evening. I've been researching new bumper materials, and the mixing of materials for maximum benefit whether defending or trying to avoid pins. Great stuff! |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
If that's true, then 67 is the only example of a separate mechanism being used to break defense. The drop down omnis/chassis shape are drivetrain-related mechanisms.
|
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
What? 67's choice of bumper material may have been unrelated to the drivetrain and pinning, and driven rather by the intake, is what Andrew is trying to say. And drop-down omnis are definitely a separate mechanism.
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: 6-sided tank drive
The bumper material was primarily a function of their intake mechanism.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|