By the side I meant the long side with the wall, not the shorter side that bots enter from.
I know that, but isn’t that a lot of weight? How would you balance that?
What is the difference between putting a heavy mobile goal on by driving up and putting on a heavy mobile goal from the side? The platform balances pretty easy and you can put the mobile goal on in the center.
No no no. Not the the platform itself. I mean that’s a lot of weight on the back of the robot. How exactly would you balance that weight on a dr4b robot similar to 2616J’s.
Oh ok, I’m sorry. For the robot people would do trays on double reverse four bars, and to balance they would have wheelie bars that fold out, here is and example of this. The cubes in total would probably weigh just a little less than the mobile goal, but the tray is sticking out really far so I would imagine that lifting mobile goals would be about the same.
I’m just trying to figure out how you’d be able to fit the wheelie bars to flip out.
There are many ways to do it. One common way I have seen with double reverse four bars is having the wheelie bars on a slider mechanism (not necessarily sliders due to sliders being prone to detach with a lot of weight on them.) Then have a pin attached to the double reverse four bar that keeps the wheelie bars in until the dr4b is lifted.
Having any unpowered wheels on the drive this year will be a huge pain
why is that? I doubt robots are going to need that much traction to climb the platform, having either the frontmost or rearmost wheels be free-spinning should be ok I would think, as long as the weight distribution of the robot doesn’t put all the weight on the free-spinning wheels. (which in the case of antitips, it might).
I think free-spinning wheels might play a large part in drives this year because of the size of the goals. There is no way to fit the goal between two sides of a standard tank drive. (35 wide drive, 6 hole wide drive channels on either side). But if you make the wheels on the ends of one side of your drive free-spinning, you are able to fit the goal between the sides of your drive, and therefore can make a very compact, secure, and efficient goal lift.
The alternatives are either having a larger lift that grabs the goal way out in front of the robot, and then lifts it up and on top of the chassis (which works fine, but the bulkiness might conflict with other parts of the robot, space is really precious this year), or to have the lift just stick out real far, which is bad imo because of the poor center of gravity and the susceptibility of defense.
So by putting free spinning wheels at the very front (or back depending on how you look at it) of your drive, you can fit an ideal goal lift. If you make sure to balance your robot’s weight well, I think the other wheels should have enough traction to climb the platform.
If you can only hold one mogo at a time, then the mogos that you are not holding are vulnerable.
if you rush middle, and grab a majority of the neutral mogos, but your alliance (blue in this case) can only hold, and therefore safely defend a total of two mogos at once, then your alliance mogos will become extremely difficult to defend from red. Eventually, red will steal your blue goals, put them down in their zone, and continue with stacking their rings, forcing you to go get the blue mogos from red’s zone. This of course will force you to drop your neutral goal, leaving that open for red to grab. There’s no safe way to recover a lost mogo.
If your alliance can hold 4 mogos at once, then performing a “perfect” park (2 robots, 4 mogos, 8+ rings scored on posts), will guarantee a match win.
an alliance that can only hold one mogo per robot will be beat by an alliance that can hold two mogos each almost every time.
Having just spent all of this week helping lead a robotics camp using only robots with rear wheel drive, I feel like I can safely justify saying it would be a pain to run a robot without all wheels driven this year. Having only half the drive powered meant that you could only feasibly go up the platform in a single direction, in addition to having horrific turning characteristics. In the very least conventional antitips are not an option. As soon as you go up the platform you would have potentially lost more than half your traction since the antitip would force the drive to lift from the ground. Again, it’s not impossible, but I can’t in good conscience say that having only part of the drive powered this year will not be a huge pain to have to deal with.
I doubt only being able to go up from only one side will be any sort of hinderance this year
Depending on which side you drive up the platform, as long as your powered wheel is in the back and grips onto the tiles (so the anti-tips would be the first to contact the platform in the front of the robot), i doubt that traction losses will be significant enough to prevent you from parking before the drive evens out on the platform and you have all your wheels’ power again. And, if your drive is geared or linked, then losing power theoretically wouldn’t be a problem as well