You know they are just called boulders they aren’t actual boulders right?
We are using 2 vex 775s on a dual to one, with what I believe is a 15:1 versaplanetary. It will take about 4-7 seconds after firing to get it fully compressed
I think we forgot that when we were designing :yikes:
We too have a very powerful shooter. In testing at the build site it sounded like a jet engine and could be heard from the very back of the stands at Orlando. Our robot was called the “buzz saw” by the game announcer.
We didn’t get to use it much due to copious mechanical problems, but when it did work those balls flew into that high goal at supersonic speed.
Based on watching about 130 matches in person, I’m not entirely convinced that harder is better when shooting at the high goal.
Well at least you have too much instead of too little, if you had too little power you would need to add MORE…
They were pretty crazy. Probably a 75-100 ft shot outside of the field when they missed.
Team 3453 is using 775pro’s with 2 inch stealth wheels.
5817’s “bench grinder” is absolutely the hardest shooter I have ever personally witnessed on an FRC robot…ever.
My response to this whole thread is… WHY?
Why not?
My understanding is team 2240 has an interesting shooter to say the least. I haven’t seen it in action, I don’t know exact details, all I know is how the boulder goes through the process of “shooting” and it is scary. It is also worth noting I haven’t seen anything like it before ever.
I’m guessing that a faster shot velocity would reduce the effects of drag, deformed balls, and other real-world variables from affecting your trajectory calculations?
Pretty sure it would increase the effects of drag
I tend to think the opposite. Our testing agrees as well.
Based of the video physics analysis we did, the shot clocks in at 110 FPS or 75 MPH. Based off the boulder I took to the face after it ricocheted off the wall of our shop, the shot clocks in at just under “Superman sneezing in your direction”.
My response to this whole thread is… WHY?
Basically it’s about trajectory. You want the flattest one so that when aiming, your shot is less dependent on the distance to target. This means the driver doesn’t have to worry about positioning of the robot and the software doesn’t have to calculate a firing solution as rigorously. Furthermore, the shot is less dependent on the condition of the game pieces. In 2013’s case, a linear trajectory was desired because math is hard. Take a look at video of 2013 in aerial assist- the same design philosophies were in use. On the FIRST Robotics Canada facebook page, they recently posted a ton of pictures of GTR East with a few close-ups of 2013’s machine. While I can’t speak too much to the development of the mechanism as I am in a purely advisory relationship with the team this year, I do know it required a number of prototypes and testing to see what the limits of compression, friction material and inertia were.
Our robot competed at FIM Event Sterlish-Standing (Week 1) and during our auton, we got caught up on on of the defenses, with our shooter tilted up, with even more angle tacked on as a result of the defense. We are using a flywheel system with two mini-CIM’s to shoot the ball. Our autonomous shoots the ball after a certain period of time, so just before the auton period ended, the ball was shot and hit the ceiling, almost getting stuck in the rafters of the HUGE gym we were in. Pretty powerful shot. Not to mention that we may or may not have taken out one of the other drivers…
For our shooter competition speed it about 45-55% power, ending up around 4k RPM.
However, we do have a ‘testing’ mode referred to as Airplane! for shooting balls 60 feet, scar- I mean impressing parents, and punishing underclassmen.
This thread needs videos.