Delta III | ITZ - Ways to be faster in the near future

Even though we are as a forum to continue talking about drivetrain styles, lift styles, and intake styles, here is [edit]some questions to be asked to prepare for the near future:

  • What “pairs” are predicted to work together correctly (like lift+claw)
  • What type of lift program should be used to increase simplicity when driving?
  • Pneumatics > 12 motors or 12 motors > pneumatics?
  • Speed to dump faster or push power to block opponents?
  • Techniques to follow to get maximum capacity of your robot? (Like strategies)
  • Mobile goal only or stationary goal as well?
  • Bonus points we should and shouldn’t follow?
  • Prevention of tipping?
  • Autonomous strategies?
  • Gear ratio plans?
  • Claw, side rollers, skyrise vertical rollers, vacuum-type skyrise intake, etc… intake system?
  • Anything else?
    What are your plans to create a reliable and effective robot? Are you willing to share? I will share privately my ideas, if you’d like :slight_smile:

I think you can never know this early on if pneumatics or 12 motors are better, as it depends on design specifics. Even at the end, there’s not an objectively correct method.

I personally think the type of drive train you choose is going to impact what your robot does. For example, 4 motors+ transmission means you most likely will use pneumatics which means you should probably incorporate them somewhere else on your robot, or you could have the recently super popular 6 motor fast chassis which will probably result in a slower stacking mechanism, or just the standard 4 motor torque/Highspeed chassis which will probably make you a faster stacker but a slow moving robot. I think the chassis you choose will impact the whole design more than previous games just because the speed you need everywhere to win this game.

I cant decide if a fast robot with a simple claw is better or worse than a slower robot that picks up a mobile goal and prebuilds stacks on it.

I’d say that the faster robot would probably work slightly better. I feel like strategically, since you only need one goal with the highest stack on it, a fast robot that can quickly adjust to competition for the highest stack and yet still score normally will have a slight edge against a robot that will always get the highest stack, but can’t score normally as efficiently.

I think I have to agree. When I first heard about <SG9> I wanted to build this crazy build-a-stack robot, but now that I think about it, be able to strategically reposition your cones is going to be more important than the marginal gains one could expect from build-a-stack. I’m very willing to be proven wrong though

No one will truly know until the season starts, but I’m definitely taking this theory into account during my initial design.

That is true… You are right on that, so might as well say what is your opinion about pneumatics in the past? Does the extra weight slow down your drive? (I never really used pneumatics)

Yes, I definitely agree on that! With your experience, does it seem to help if you use pneumatics or use the extra motors?

Yea, that’s what I’m stuck on as well :stuck_out_tongue: It’s such a hard decision but probably we may become more efficient to handle the prebuild stacking as well as maintain speed. But yet again we’re in the present so it’s unknown…

That seems pretty legitimate… This also brings a question of whether if this game is more on driving practice than anything else?

Seems like we are slanted towards fast and speed.
Lol but yet again…


  • There isn’t a wrong method when using pneumatics or motors
  • The drivetrain you choose affects how your lift and manipulator works.
  • It seems like a faster robot that doesn’t internally stack can seem to work better
    Anything else to add/change for another summary?
    Questions unanswered that come to mind:
  • How do you solve with the issue of cones that are tipped(No matter what, it will most probably happen during every match)?
  • Of the game, what plans are you having for autonomous?
    (Even though there are posts about lifts, drivetrain, and intakes, I’m trying to incorporate everything for a final robot by the community to decide for the game. I have my own opinions and I am willing to share, once it’s all said and done.)

I like 12 motors because how much easier it is to be effective and how much less work it is. But i have seen spectacular uses of pneumatics even with the 12 motor rule in play. I think autonomous is going to be about moving bases into zone and not so much about stacking high. I think that internally stacking robots and fast normal stacking bots will be very good together so i see both designs doing very well and i cant see a clear disadvantage of one over the other yet. Cones tipped should be as easy as a bar on the side of your robot then turning so it hits it back over or using your intake and turning but i think it will slow teams down for a while. The only issue with pneumatics i see is with the large amount of cones skills will be hard to last through and maybe in matches that are a little slower paced allowing you to get more cones. Drive trains will be important though.

Personally, I’m thinking of making my manipulator a small claw, where the inner spokes (be it standoffs, anti-slip that slides into the cone, etc.) rotates easily. If this can be achieved, then if cones are tipped over, simply pick them up from the top, and since the axis of rotation is on the top of the cone and the majority of the mass to be rotated is towards one specific area, it will rotate downwards with your spokes and automatically right itself, and it is now ready to be easily scored.

To be clear, the claw itself won’t rotate, just the spokes. It’ll probably just be like 4 standoffs on each side that grab the cones by their corrugations.

Yea, I think that a simple, fast claw will work well, while the stack builder bot will be prone to many failures and malfunctions such as the stack tipping over or the drivetrain stalling from the considerable amount of weight the stack and mobile goal will have. As far as tipped cones go, I suggest making a claw that can rotate downwards.

Hmmm, but is it worth the extra work to make a stack builder? you dont really have to worry about other teams, you can probably make higher and more stacks, and i feel they could end up playing both roles if not carrying a base around. Also, is it worth another motor to grab tipped stars when i am sure there is a passive way that is a bit slower but requires no motors? i feel the strategy most people are trying is very basic and strait forward. I think people need to continue to look over the rules and see where the most amount of points are coming from.

I can’t agree anymore! I feel so simple xD But yeah, pneumatics may be something to consider not doing due to the amount of actuations needed for skills (idk if you can make up to 60 actuations, is someone able to do it?)
Currently I see two ways to right the tipped cones:

  • Having standoffs that can right the cone by grabbing the top of the cone (claw).
  • Having a claw that can rotate downwards
    My notes about this when thinking is: pneumatics or motors to rotate the claw downwards?

This seems to be something to consider as well… a passive system to upright the cones?
Here’s the summaries so far:

  • There isn’t a wrong method when using pneumatics or motors
  • The drivetrain you choose affects how your lift and manipulator works.
  • It seems like a faster robot that doesn’t internally stack can seem to work better
  • 12 motors if you want to be as simple as possible, and pneumatics when you want to add more functionality in other areas
  • A claw rotating downwards or a claw that can uses the mass of the cone to tilt the cone. Or…
  • We need to find out a passive way to upright the cones
    We seem to be starting to go somewhere when it comes to an intake system and the type of robot. How about lift? It seems like other posts are going towards the reverse 4 bar… Your thoughts?

If you make the standoff portion of the claw rotate with enough freedom, the entire mechanism is passive :slight_smile: Just have the 4 standoffs on each side on a plate or something that rotates freely, and boom - passive mechanism to upright cones!

I wouldn’t consider weight. Just use them if they’re better for your application. I’ve been satisfied with pneumatics in the past, but they can be temperamental.

I think you are getting somewhere by using standoffs to passively upright the cones. :slight_smile: Wink (You’re getting warmer to Delta Alliances plans. The plans can be the same, or can be different)

That makes sense, since pneumatics will have the pro of having different actuations in certain areas.
Any more ideas? Currently we’re standing on fast drive, dr4b lift, and a claw. How would you assume a way to speed all of these things up to increase competitiveness? How would you have a way to pick up cones less-precisely to become faster? Types of autonomous?

A passive intake to pick up a cone can work too. :open_mouth: That’s one motor or one piston saved.

I was thinking a really good strategy is just to knock over all the cones with two convex standoffs extending to 48 inches wide total. Then you have a better chance of winning as many teams will probably not have practiced or be able to pick the cones up after they have been knocked over.

I think 4 motor turbo drive w/ a 4 motor DR4B and 2 motor claw will probably work well. Pneumatics are probably not going to be as common this year, because you’ll have to move 80 game pieces or more, so you’ll probably be out of air towards the end of the match. Using a passive lock to hold in a bar might be a good addition, so you can knock over cones. On that note, if you have a cone in your claw and part of your robot is sticking out and pushing/knocking over a cone, is that a violation of <SG9>?

Possessing – A Robot is considered to be Possessing a Cone if it is carrying, holding, or controlling
the movement of a Cone in the Robot. Pushing/plowing Cones is not considered Possession,
however using concave portions of your Robot to control the movement of Cones is considered