|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
|
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
For example (in elims): 2 bots, 6 gears each: 180 + another 20 pts if another auton bot + additional 100 pts for 4 rotor bonus. Add another 90 pts (40 pts + 50 bonus for 40kpa) for an ideal fuel bot. We end up with 390 pts. Up to 540 with three climbs. Good gearbots that can score 6 gears each + climb make up the majority of the points with this strategy, with the fuel bot bringing the cherry on top. This is an ideal scenario, but it illustrates what a championship alliance may be able to accomplish with good gearing. |
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
I'm predicting a lot of teams are putting too much faith in the little hook on the end of the spring. In our testing with the "official" spring (with team stand), if the gear was placed less than half way on the spring, the pilot would have to pull up rather slowly because the spring can deflect a large enough amount to make the gear want to slip off.
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
I have to agree with Hill. We received our McMaster spring last nigh and it is not as stiff as I thought it would be. An active mech that pushes the gear in should have no problem. A passive mech that only stets the gear at frame perimeter is very touchy. Pilots, pull smoothly. Placing any further back is risky. If a gear is dropped will doing this makes that station unusable. A team can take the penalty and move it. If they move a second dropped gear is that a yellow card? A third a red card? Gears are not easy. Balls are not easy. This is going to be a wild dynamic game.
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
I think one of the things that people overlook is the defense capabilities on the gear. It's only 5 points for a typical foul and 140 points for the last gear. There's going to be incredibly aggressive defense against that last gear, and if you don't manage to place that last gear you have just wasted time on the other 5.
|
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
As teams start the integration process I think many will realize the true difficulty of fuel. These balls aren't small relative to the robot and holding a large amount while still being able to properly index and feed them consistently to a shooter at a high rate of fire is going to be difficult.
I'd bet many teams at this point have prototyped shooters capable of firing 5+ balls per second but haven't spent nearly as much time feeding the balls at that rate. With limited space this year stacking just 10 balls for auton is difficult to package in a "do everything robot" A case study we often looked at on my team was 254's 2013 robot. It was by all accounts a great "do everything" robot, good shooter, good intake and a sweet climber but it's indexing mechanism held it back severely in the upper levels of competition due to its relatively low rate of fire. This was probably a result of limited options in the packaging/integration stage of design. In the end much simpler robots were able to be more competitive. My prediction is a lot of upper middle tier robots will shoot at a high rate of fire with low consistency due to poor feeding which may be fine for teleop but will struggle in auton or shoot 3-8 indexed balls at a high rate of fire and then significantly slow down as un indexed balls feed into the indexing system. Although there will definitely be teams who are all able to overcome this. Last edited by mman1506 : 18-01-2017 at 09:47. |
|
#37
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
Unless 4 rotors becomes utterly mundane and easily achievable, gear heavy alliances are going to have to get creative to keep opponents in the dark about just how many gears they have remaining. |
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
On the other hand, if you've been planning your systems from the beginning, and have utilized CAD effectively, then it isn't terribly difficult to maintain a large hopper, and set up an effective indexing system. My question becomes, how big of an indexing system will separate great Fuel robots from good and poor Fuel robots. Will the top teams be able to empty their 120 ball hoppers in 12 seconds? Or will they choose to go with shorter bursts of rapid fire shooting (say 20 Fuel in 2 seconds) and just mix Fuel scoring into their typical Gear cycles. |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Not sure how possible a 120 fuel hopper is. I'd say around 40-50 would be about the max you could store. Inevitably someone will prove me wrong, however.
|
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
|
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
CAD + math says it's very possible. I don't think we'll keep our 120 Fuel hopper though in favor of a slightly smaller hopper with a faster indexing system. I will say that in order to have a large hopper size, you're giving yourself less room for your gear mechanism, and your climber. Teams have to determine if these tradeoffs are worth it.
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
No you're pretty right, I don't think you can get more than 50-60 unless you are only a shooter bot. We've tried many ways to improve storage capacity as well.
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
|
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Why the low Gear love
Quote:
Yep, totally practical ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|