4bar Tray VS Dunkbot (snail bot?)

So I’ve been brainstorming different designs and researching on YouTube and the forums like most of you guys, and I came to the early conclusion that a 4bar with a tray and roller intakes would be really viable at least for early season. But then I noticed a new design gaining popularity with roller intakes and a tread indexer that tosses balls into the goals. Now I’m wondering: which is the best design? They both have pros and cons. The tray can use a flipout to hold around 6 balls for extra efficiency to prevent driving around picking more up, but it’s also slower to raise the lift rather than just tossing the balls in with the dunkbot. The dunkbot can be really fast and small, but doesn’t have the ball capacity and it makes it harder to descore as you will need to intake and then outtake to get rid of the ball. What do you guys think? Let’s get a discussion going.

  • Dunkbot: 99999v
  • 4bar Tray: 3141S/A, Marc

0 voters

2 Likes

Yo @Xenon27 looks like you got the credit you wanted

6 Likes

So does a tray lift. Also the hood bot can easily have a trapdoor in the back that is ratcheted off the indexer. Would just poop out the opponent balls. Or it could just throw the opponents balls harder to make them ricochet off the backboard and fly away from the goal. Or just over the central goal.

Personally I’m a fan of the hood bots, but I think tray lifts are just as viable.

4 Likes

If you watch the MARC RI24H video on youtube you can see they have a smaller set of intakes mounted to the base that descore the opponent’s balls when the lift is up. It puts the balls into a holding area so the other team cant get them back but you could also change that to have them roll out the back.

1 Like

Yeah that was very clever. But nothing a hoodbot couldn’t accomplish with some modifications.

2 Likes

I won’t disagree. However lift bots still have the 6 ball advantage. Just playing devil’s advocate here

1 Like

A hood bot could also achieve a 6 ball capacity by raising the magazine.

That would be really complicated. That’s a flipout magazine with rollers we’re talking about. Don’t forget the balls are over 6 inches in diameter

1 Like

I was thinking about raising the magazine straight up

A 6 ball hood would be ridiculously tall lol. Thats why I think trays can rival hoodbots, the greater capacity. Hoodbots make up for that in cycle speed.

3 Likes

to play off of your point, a hoodbot would be able to cycle between scoring and descoring much faster as it doesn’t have to lift up to do the job.

2 Likes

umm well, wider hood bot will do it…possibly with a funnel

1 Like

Possible, but definitely a challenge. You’ll have ball jamming issues to deal with. And you have less control over the order in which balls get scored. But it might be doable with 2 seperate hoods that have seperate indexers and funnel together into one indexer. But might have to be slower to avoid jamming problems, and I think simplicity is going to be king this game.

1 Like

Simplicity and speed will definately be key. That’s the dunkbot’s main advantage and 6 balls will take that away from it.

2 Likes

Yeah or maybe two chambers with a switch at the top that toggles what side gets funneled into the shooter. Yeah I see how this can get complicated but a good driver will definitely triumph this game

Basically you choose traybot or hoodbot and just practice the heck out of it.

Another advantage of the hood imo is that it’s both easier to drive and to code. The fact that the drive is literally the only think you need to worry about having any sort of motion control with means you can make better programs easier.

10 Likes

When you say cycle speed, what exactly do you mean? I honestly think lifts if done well could have almost an equal cycle speed, along with a higher capacity. Unless I’m the only one sitting on the idea I have, which I’m sure I’m not, trays could have an equivalent cycle time and maybe even be theoretically quicker with certain designs. However, maybe hood mods would cancel that out, I’m really not sure. Does cycle time mean removing three balls and putting 3 balls in? If that’s what it is I would argue trays could match that.

Edit: To be clear I’m definitely not knocking the design, I think it’s really cool. Just bringing up a discussion point to analyze both designs.

2 Likes

At first glance, I like the idea of the hoodbot more for speed. Also the ability to descore and score at the same time could be clutch. To be competitive, you would probably need to somehow have a 4-5 ball capacity. I think the key to this game will be the ability to change ownership of towers quickly. Dumping 3 balls into a tower doesn’t add many extra points. There probably should have been a bonus if you had 3 balls of the same color in a tower… That might have made something like the traybot more viable.

That being said, if you had a traybot with a 9 ball capacity, that might be OP for skills as you could go pick up all the balls you need to own every tower all at once.

1 Like

Keep in mind thought that trays could score and descore at the same time as well…

1 Like

The main advantage of a hood bot is that it can reorder the balls while putting them in. If you have a red on the bottom, with a tray you would have to remove the red ball and use another red ball from your magazine.
A hood bot could just intake the ball in the goal and dump it in on the top, changing goal ownership without needing to have any balls stored in the magazine

4 Likes