Car Nack Predicts 2010-1

[Alex Cormier]

How about this?

3. At least one person will be injured with the trident during game-play.

[Not2B]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

How about this?

3. At least one person will be injured with the trident during game-play.

I'm worried you may be right. And with the non-ball end, no doubt. I hope everyone's human players have practice to feed balls up so they can do it slowly and calmly, without whipping that thing around.

[Kyle]

On the topic of hanging, those that were around in 2004 remember how fast robots were able to climb the stairs and platforms and hang with just seconds left in a match. I remember robots that were able to hang and lift with seconds left in the matches on a consistent basis using very simple mechanisms. 8 points in the end game, I can see it happening, and I think the regional(s) that I will be able to attend I will see it with my own eyes.


Best of Luck

[Cynette]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I think everyone needs to estimate the length of time it will take to hang three robots. The risk of a loss becomes too great while the other team is scoring while you are doing neither scoring or defending. I would love to see it but I don't think I will.

Our team has done some of the calculations on the forces on the first hanging robot to support a second (didn't even consider the third hanger). Based on that, I think that is as much of a challenge as the time restraint.

[Racer26]

I think we wont see it largely because the top team is unlikely to be comfortable supporting 450(ish)lbs from their tower grabber widget. If its beefy enough to hold up 450 lbs of robot, its going to be heavy, and i doubt anyone is going to make that design tradeoff.

EDIT: Unless, of course, the GDC decides to make it more worth our while... like say... a 2nd SUSPENDED ROBOT is worth a 2x or 3x multiplier to either the hanging stack, or the goals scored.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I think we wont see it largely because the top team is unlikely to be comfortable supporting 450(ish)lbs from their tower grabber widget. If its beefy enough to hold up 450 lbs of robot, its going to be heavy, and i doubt anyone is going to make that design tradeoff.

EDIT: Unless, of course, the GDC decides to make it more worth our while... like say... a 2nd SUSPENDED ROBOT is worth a 2x or 3x multiplier to either the hanging stack, or the goals scored.

Technically, it does not have to be "beefy" to support that kind of weight. There are tradeoffs involved.

I don't think it'll be seen because I don't know how much most teams can be trusted to try and attach themselves to someone else's robot without breaking something. The point values don't make it worth it, IMO.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I think we wont see it largely because the top team is unlikely to be comfortable supporting 450(ish)lbs from their tower grabber widget. If its beefy enough to hold up 450 lbs of robot, its going to be heavy, and i doubt anyone is going to make that design tradeoff.

This is not true. You can very easily support 450 lbs of robots with a very light mechanism.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

This is not true. You can very easily support 450 lbs of robots with a very light mechanism.

I'm with Cory on this. There are some VERY simple solutions out there that will move an alliance from a +6 bonus to a +8 bonus with very little effort and minimal mass impact. I will be amazed if several teams do not figure it out and make it work at the competitions. I understand Car Nack's concerns on this one. But I am willing to bet (very cautiously, because going against Car Nack is pretty much like spitting into the wind) that Car Nack will be wrong on this one.

-dave


.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I'm with Cory on this. There are some VERY simple solutions out there that will move an alliance from a +6 bonus to a +8 bonus with very little effort and minimal mass impact. I will be amazed if several teams do not figure it out and make it work at the competitions. I understand Car Nack's concerns on this one. But I am willing to bet (very cautiously, because going against Car Nack is pretty much like spitting into the wind) that Car Nack will be wrong on this one.

-dave


.

I do agree with Car Nack. It's not that it's technically unfeasible, it's that you're relying on others to do so, which means sitting around and waiting, potentially for a long time.

[Enigma's puzzle]

I have to agree with Car Nack, it will be tricky, but i believe if there was a robot out there that allowed a simultaneous climbing by two robots at once that would really relieve some of the pressure of staying on the field to score, as they could wait longer until they have to set up, because both other teams could climb at the same time.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

I have to agree with Car Nack, it will be tricky, but i believe if there was a robot out there that allowed a simultaneous climbing by two robots at once that would really relieve some of the pressure of staying on the field to score, as they could wait longer until they have to set up, because both other teams could climb at the same time.

but how would you fit such a robot into a 84 inch cylinder?

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by IndySam

but how would you fit such a robot into a 84 inch cylinder?

When you see the answer to this you will kick yourself for not thinking of it. It is really simple. The question we still have is, "Is it worth it?".

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

When you see the answer to this you will kick yourself for not thinking of it. It is really simple. The question we still have is, "Is it worth it?".

Bit of a thread bump, but this has been eating at me a little lately.

What is the very simple solution to this problem?

[Enigma's puzzle]

Originally Posted by IndySam

but how would you fit such a robot into a 84 inch cylinder?

I have ideas for it, even though my team wont attempt it and i dont believe they should attempt it, but with a little innovation, i think you could do it eazier than you think.

A robot that has bars on both....

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by IndySam

but how would you fit such a robot into a 84 inch cylinder?

It can be done with drive-on platforms, barely. I'm sure that there is a much more clever solution.