Upon receiving the field elements for Change up, we quickly realized that descoring from the towers and upon further investigation in appendix A, the gap to descore balls is less than the ball diameter. To take balls out with rollers, we have to bend the towers back. Do you think that this is intentional, or is this a mistake that will be changed later?
I’m pretty sure that it’s intentional.
Yes, this is intentional, they would not have printed incorrect measurements in Appendix A, and it won’t be changed just because it’s difficult to descore.
It is intentional. I dislike it, because minor variations in the goals have drastic effects on how easy descoring is, but I guess just make sure your robot can descore even the tightest goals.
so how much force does it actually take to descore? is it enough that it could be a problem for a snail bot or similer’s intakes to handle?
A pretty decent amount. Like Xenon said, minor variances can make it easier or harder. With no variance, it takes a fair amount of force. It won’t easily roll out.
Not if the intakes are designed correctly. Less than 600 rpm cartridges and compression should do the trick.
ok. Thanks! i thought i would have to redesign! lol.
600 rpm intakes might be able to handle it, but I’d gear them down to like 400 to be safe. 400 is still really really fast so no speed worries.
we only have 200 rpm cartridges.
would this ratio work with a 200 rpm?
(the three motors together = a sprocket and flaps. the bottom pair is connected by chain an flap.)
if you want a good ratio using 200 rpm cartridges, use chain to get a 1:2 ratio for speed. 6t sprocket to 12t sprocket, or 12t to 24t. or just direct drive, tbh 200 rpm is still fast.
ok. i will try this. thanks!
I can confirm that my 600rpm intakes did start to overheat when just testing and descoring, and I have to push into the goal to get a ball if it’s far in… not too great… also I swapped to a 28wide base so that the balls can fit in the mid zone of it, bc 25 is too thin.