|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Does 118 now have a triple balance mechanism?
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
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. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
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?
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
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. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
-Clinton- |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
469 had it off to the side at waterford and used it a few times going up the co-op bridge.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
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.
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7629560227229/ -Clinton- |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
Quote:
-D Last edited by davepowers : 01-04-2012 at 13:25. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional
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* Last edited by thefro526 : 01-04-2012 at 15:23. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|