With the back intake, it’s nice for skills but in a match when the balls are against the wall next to a goal you’ll find your self just using normal intakes. Also we’ve had 2 robots with this and the first one had the front and badckrollers unlinked so it could eject and we hardly did it. You’ll also find that having the rollers linked you can have higher speeds/torque in the front. The back is only 1 roller and only needs 600 rpm so it’s never strained while the front has 3 rollers and needs higher speeds.
2 Likes
The way I accomplished my pooper system was through the use of ratchets, I have two motors on this subsystem. One that powers my bottom and top roller, and one that powers the middle indexer and pooper. However when I spin them all to shoot, The indexer engages a ratchet that allows both motors to power my top and bottom roller for maximum torque on they system
2 Likes
What type of roller setup would be best?
- Simple rollers (LRT)
- Ejector (LRT)
- Unlinked back intake (LRT)
- Linked back intake (LRT)
- Simple rollers (Live)
- Ejector (Live)
- Unlinked back intake (Live)
- Linked back intake (Live)
- Simple rollers (Skills)
- Ejector (Skills)
- Unlinked back intake (Skills)
- Linked back intake (Skills)
0
voters
Your example is arguably still not as fast as a simpler robot with just a flat backing. So you don’t gain much in cycle time for tons of added complexity and even weight becomes an issue when the drive base needs to move so fast to keep up with the best robots.
I will say that the simpler robot needs more driver skill because the driver has to react to quickly enough to not rescore the opposing color ball when cycling out a goal, but this could be optimized with code a lot more easily than a pooper.
The point being –– what you gain from having a pooper is marginal and usually not worth it.
3 Likes