Ideas for tower takeover: Middle school

What would you use two extra motors for any ways

No, they are trying to make a traybot (which is why ALL the sources on this thread have been about traybots).


I’m pretty sure they edited it because I remember it describing a passive intake. Also the link is to a passive intake.

If you can have a one stage tray you can probably stack up to eight cubes which is plenty for middle school and if your intake can score and descore towers you would be unstoppable in a middle school tournament

Nah… and a 8cube onestage? Also:

I wouldn’t dismiss them so easily. I’ve seen some really op passive lifts, some could definitely go toe to toe with a good traybot.


@Deicer and @Xenon27 I have great respect for both of you, but if you mean passive intakes to be intakes without rollers to reorient the cubes, then I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion.

I understand passive intake like the one animated in great 81k v2 and v3 videos where robot needs to perfectly align itself with the cubes to intake them.

These two robots look amazing and play fast through the magik of animation, but this will never happen on the real field.

You cannot spend time to align the robot with each individual cube for the fully passive intake to work. Not with heavy defense by opposing alliance.

If you had in mind Amazing Houdini by teams 9605A and 9421 then I must say that it is not fully passive.

Intake rollers actively reorient and intake cubes that robot meets at random angles on the field, before it takes them into its semi-passive cage claw.

In my part of the world to be competitive you must quickly intake any cubes while opponents play heavy defense on you. I have not seen any robots with fully passive intakes that made it into the eliminations.

1 Like

Yeah, I don’t think either of us meant a fully passive robot. I’d disagree that this fact makes the cage no longer fully passive ( I was referring to these)

Edit: I’d like to add though that with angled attachments I think the need for direct alignment can be, at the very least, minimized. I haven’t seen it on a robot here yet but it has tested with some success for me in the past

1 Like

i havent edited it and as i stated i was not using that design i was just looking at the bars lifting as the cubes came in

no i am wanting to make a traybot if a traybot where the cubes are on a tray and you stack up a bunch then deposit them

@ChrisBegines do not worry about what @enothecool was saying. That user has very poor track record of understanding the question when he writes his opinions.

Please, study carefully robots revealed this season like 97963A, 448X, 1961Z and more from the robot showcase category of the top list:

Also, you may find very informative some of the @Doctortictac topics where many users were helping him to debug mechanical issues with his robot in great detail:

I would be very cautious with reliability of passive alignment attachments for intaking the cubes. When you are constantly defended against you may not have enough time to let them work.

Second reason is that when fields are sprayed with fresh antistatic they become sticky and anything that relies on pushing cube along the floor tiles will be not reliable.

Even Amazing Houdini horizontal intake rollers may lose their efficiency if they have to drag cubes over the floor.

Active vertical intakes, also need more time to align before they could reliably pick the cube.

This leaves you with active intakes that are inclined at 30-60 deg angle and start grabbing and lifting the cubes at the same time as they try moving it in horizontal direction.

But if you have run across a video of any other successful intake type, that you will be so kind to share, I will be thrilled to see it.

1 Like

Hey man, Passive intakes can be good. This year doesn’t have to be all traybots. Some can do really well. And @enothecool just did not understand what was happening about this thread. Half of it talks about passive intake while the other talks about traybots. Passive intakes do need to be accurate when intaking but they can still be good.

Guess a lot depends on what’s your definition of good?

Like what @weilin said, at my part of the world, passive intake is not gonna be good enough (at least for this season game).
And think weilin has even clearly explained why passive intake is not going to be good enough as well. Trust me - at high level games, you don’t have time to aim to be accurate before you intake.

Mind explaining how does passive intake translate to a faster speed?
Passive intake is not a magic pill.
And what worked in previous seasons doesn’t mean it will work for this season.
And really, even for most of the previous seasons, the high level teams normally tried to avoid passive intakes., unless the game elements made it easy for passive.

Don’t think @weilin is saying it has to be all traybot. He is just saying about whether it should be an active or passive intake.

Hmm… don’t think I can agree with this assessment - the MS teams in Singapore were already hitting stack of 8 cubes since June.

But yes, just like weilin, I would really like to see a real good passive intake that will be as effective as the active intake. I would want to save some motors too :slight_smile:


62019X has a completely passive intake, on a dr4b that could hold a bunch of cubes (7 I think) that was really successful when paired with a good traybot. I think passive intakes can be really good with the right partner. I’d say that a robot like 62019X is a better partner for a good tray than another tray would be.


Thanks your information was helpfull ive been looking at the goofy 448x alot is what im looking for where it can put cubes in tower and stack alot of them in a tray, im gonna find a way for the tray to flip up instead of the tray raising as cubes come in as i was wanting to do previously


This robot?

Smooth intake and outake for a passive intake system.
They did a good job for a passive, but with all due respect to them, this is the part that will cost them the (high-level) game - 1:24 to 1:27.

Don’t get me wrong - obviously it is a very good passive intake system over here, but still don’t think it is as efficient as a roller intake system.

And interesting view from you - about a stacker-bot making a better partner for a traybot than another traybot :slight_smile:

Allow me to play the devil’s advocate over here - let’s consider the china’s traybot (that is already stacking an entire stack of 10 to 12 cubes), do you think they will need stacker-bot?


of course I think a lift bot will always lose to a tray 1v1, but I believe that one of those china traybots could easily manage three stacks on their own, and with a lift bot playing defense during this time, could do so quite unopposed as far as getting enough cubes goes. then after they make three stacks, they could switch roles, with the traybot playing defense and the lift adding to the already existing stacks. with this strategy, I feel confident in a tray lift alliance’s ability to beat 2 trays.

An interesting but very different game analysis from the way I see this season’s game.

  1. Don’t think you will need specifically a stacker-bot (or a lift bot) to play defence.

  2. Regarding stacking on top the existing stacks…
    a) In order for the stacker-bot to be contributing to the existing stacks, it will need to lift up to at least 10 to 12 cubes high to stack (based on china’s traybot capacity). Not so sure if it is practical to even attempt it.

b) Assuming the opponents also have at least one china’s style traybot, think the field will run out of cubes for the stacker-bot to collect and stack further onto the existing stacks.
Le’ts take the lower limit of 10 cubes, and we are looking at high level games whereby all the 6 stacks (from both alliances) will be up - 6 x 10 = 60 cubes.
Meaning, the field will be left with 6 cubes for the towers?
And between choosing to put these remaining cubes to the towers or on existing stacks, I’d rather take the towers.


Ive seen one game where passive intakes worked, ITZ. Doing passive intakes in TT is a waste of time, they will be unreliable, and in contrary to ITZ, the game pieces have to be picked up from a certain angle, meaning you have to spend time lining it up then sucking it in. I dont see a reason to do something that will hold you back in the long run

1 Like

You guys do what you want but I believe passives solve a lot of issues faced by most designs like compression and intake gearing.

I’d also argue that lining up the cubes isn’t even all that time consuming. Here’s an example of a bot without an intake of any kind, just an outward c channel, aligning the cubes.

Imagine what a bot like that can do with an added intake

edit: lol just noticed it was already posted in this thread

1 Like