This is our new base.
Make of it what you will…
https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/v/1372872_653526594680291_1842434998_n.jpg?oh=85b1c8c9ce14dd7d46b03182f4b9cc76&oe=5242FAD8
I can see this as a lift, I am curious to see it as a base…
It’s going to be a hanging solution which does nothing but hang. That is the base.
Neat teaser.
Can you post another angle, and describe the the green and red fasteners ?
Do you have a link to where you bought the fasteners ?
Hmm but has anyone considerd a wall bot ? 
But it does look like a lift.
The green and red are just screw heads painted with spraypaint to make it easier to sort them by length. It is made out of 1x15 plates held together by standoffs. Soon I will post a teaser of the strategy along with a side view of this design.
A linear lift for height and a scissor lift for length so that you can score from across the field?
The Strategy…
having a robot that will pull apart like a wallbot and cap/block goals? 
Don’t forget that illegal mecanum wheel on the barrier.
very true 
Actually, it probably won’t. We played them half a dozen times last year. The use of linear slide expansions was not the best idea in the world. It stopped them from compressing back in (useful if you get hit during Autonomous), made the robot filpable (we did it), and completely blocked the goals (which is bad this year, because they’re neutral). This year, you need a way for your partner to score the Cylinders while you block them. Otherwise, the opposing team will have one guy play defense on your partner and check him into a wall for 2 minutes while the other scores.
Modeling your robot after 40A would be a better idea. They had a robot that, while too slow, blocked nearly the entire trough system at Worlds with a sort of conveyor belt on the middle that allowed their partner to put some on the belt, which would dump the sacks in.
Making a goal capper isn’t a bad idea. We talked about it, and decided against building one due to the need for an amazing partner to make it workable in a match. If you get a mediocre one, they will never get to score and you’ll loose 50-0. Possibly more, if your opponents can hang.
Good luck, man. I hope you come up with something unique.
Not to be a jerk, but all the issues you mentioned, Ephemeral_being, would be completely fixable on that robot we had. You played the very FIRST “working” iteration of our design 
Yeah, I’m aware. You did a REALLY good job improving the bracing and braking mechanisms. I was just letting some people know about the potential problems with the design, were they to build a version of it for this year.
Why does the chassis need to expand if all you’re doing is covering the goals? It could always be like a double-version of 2W’s goal-hat from Gateway Worlds. That way it could lift up for its partner to score.
They’d have to solve the issue of opponents lifting the caps, though.
I’ve deleted one post from this thread for being off topic.
While this was a really cool idea, after thinking it over we decided not to go with this idea.
To explain the teasers: The scissorlift was in fact our base. It was going to be a 4 wheel meccanum base where the structure connecting the two sides was going to be a scissorlift. When the wheels strafed in opposite directions, the base would expand, this saved us motors for extension that we were going to save for the base wheels to be as fast as possible. Our plan in the match was to speed over to get between the stashes, extend out, and block both of the stashes (Inspired by Team 2 in 2011). We could then open and close them so that our ally would score all of the buckyballs.
Why we aren’t going with this idea: Early on we tried to think of strategies that would counter this. The most effective counter to this that we could find was that the other alliance took advantage of the 2v1 and had one robot (the less offensive of the two) play full contact defense against our offensive ally. We thought that we would still get the advantage because we could guarantee that our alliance gained a large enough advantage from being the only alliance that could score in the stashes. What we didn’t take into account was the sheer clutter that the large balls cause. The strategy that we found to be the Achilles heel of our design was that the other alliance would score all 8 of the large balls in the goal zone; even our alliance’s 4. This would cause enough clutter that our ally would be unable to take full advantage of the advantage that we could provide. The same defensive strategy would be effective enough that the other alliance’s offensive robot could simply outscore us by scoring the buckyballs on the ground and keeping the numbers advantage in that.
While it was a very cool method of expanding, the strategy was too counterable by a creative opponent. If any other team is considering this strategy, we wish them luck. We really wanted to build this robot but it looks like it may have to be an off-season learning project. Maybe for the water game next year we can use something similar…
Personally, I would still keep the base and choose not to use it until necessary. You can still build a powerful efficiency robot, but have that thing under your sleeve with the removal of a few screws.
I did consider the scenario you mentioned, but by combining a bit of an efficiency robot edge, you have a slight buffer. Plus with the proper mechanism, you can overcome the issue with filling the goal zone