What type of intake does your team have?

[ronito]

• under the bumper
• over the bumper
• other (elaborate in comments)

I think it would be interesting to see what most teams are doing. I also want to hear justifications for each one in the comments cause cool!

[kingc95]

So… We currently have both designed, the under the bumper is tied to our speaker shooter. The over the bumper is for our amp scoring arm. That is less far along in the process of assembly.

The static shooter and under bumper intake was tested tonight on the bench and is ready to get attached to the base. The over the bumper intake and amp scorer is another week away I think

We saw benefits for both and were able to make both fit into the design together. It also gave us a way to remove either one and still have an offense method and a ground intake of some sort if one was far superior or one got destroyed during a match

[Cynosure]

There may be slight levels of CD bias here…

[nstrike]

Neither :3 (we have none, unfortunately)

[kule28]

We are basically an unqualified quokkas clone with climbers - gonna hope that good auto code and driving can help us rise above the others at our competitions.

[MrForbes]

kitbot shooter (only source intake) for the speaker, plus under the bumper intake for amp scoring mechanism.

[2930notjorde]

We chose under the bumper very early for autos picking up game pieces from the center line. The additional durability was weighed against OTB’s advantage of more width and reach (i.e., being able to intake from the sides at more extreme angles if designed correctly). From there, though, we did the best we could to keep the positives of the UTB intake, making the system extremely durable, while minimizing the key weakness, making it as full-width as possible. To that point we ended up with a full-width intake with the only weakness being that intaking from the sides at extreme angles isn’t really possible. Hopefully we can mitigate it with good software and driving.

[kierajreed]

> mfw CD completely forgets about non-floor intakes
classic bias moment

[John_Bottenberg]

Given the sheer volume of instances at ISR #1 and #2 where opposing robots were able to raid the SOURCE ZONE, I want to ask the following question:

What is your strategy for human loading from the SOURCE?

• Human player drops the note on the ground, robot picks it up. This is the only way to do it.
• Robot has the capability to receive the note directly from the SOURCE (even if you don’t always use that capability)
• Other (maybe you don’t plan on loading from the SOURCE at all?)

[widekarl]

My team originally intended to exclusively intake from the ground, but we’ve recently been working on a shooter mode that should allow us to intake a note from the source directly into the shooter. We haven’t tested it and may need to add some polycarb like the WCP CC to make it reliable though.

We started thinking about this before we saw any real matches as a backup in case our intake wasn’t finished in time, but now that we’ve seen how notes can be stolen, I think it’s pretty likely we’ll use this even once our ground intake is ready.

[Aaron_Li]

Reminds me of 2017 gears and HP-only intakes. If dropped, it’s pretty much stolen from the opposing alliance.

HPs need to only drop when the bot is close by.

[e172]

there were some instances, though where robots had a larger funnel that would line up to the station and drop in the gear, leading to a seamless transition.
see: einstein finalist 3719 from here in New England

[kswaid]

Hey, that’s my brisket cutting board that got raided from my kitchen! Having a big passive intake with a large margin of error can really improve performance when your software capabilities aren’t good enough to help align on the loading station like we did that year. That robot could load faster than the vast majority of even high end teams.

[Skyehawk]

People underestimate mechanical solutions to problems. Not everything needs to be a triple jointed arm.