Hello ! … in your opinion … which of the following is the best way to build an intake this year … or the way that you are building your intake this year, as i am trying to settle a dispute with an opposing team …
a) all in one intake that can intake both bucky balls and large balls
b) universal sized claw for intake ( 1 per time )
c) two simple intakes (one for each object)
d) other, please explain 
thanks
The question is too vague for me to make a judging, however I would choose A
Mainly due to driver simplicity.
If you throw in more details like storage size, ability to interchange scoring, de-score, shoot, etc. Then my perspective will change
A. That would probably be the easiest this year. All of what DracoTheDragon said is good.
A all the way. Keep it simple and dependable.
thanks, i know the question is vague, just wondering if people would go for an all in one unit (what i agree with) for two separate intakes
cheers for feedback
I dont see any one of these being objectively better than the others. There are absolutely cases where on a specific design, any one of them would be better. I would say that A best applies to most designs and B applies to the least, but a robot can be built that best suites each design.
I would vote for c, but it all depends on the intakes and how they are designed. A has the definite benefit of operator simplicity.
Curious, but why C? if you divide the intakes, it’s almost guaranteed your going to use additional motors that could be idle throughout the match. I would think the main counterexample to my statement would be a scoop, but generally, I’ve had problems with that system in this year’s game
There are many ways to keep the motors from being idle. That is a good observation, but there are ways around this such as a transmission or using pneumatics or using a gearing that engages when the lift is down or something like that. The advantage to separation is that you can make something tailor made to each specific object. I don’t think that any of the options are bad. My main counter example would be having a gear engage when the lift was down that powered another kind of intake. But this has the limitation of not being attached to the lift. There are large trade-offs but it is something to consider.
I suppose I’m supposed to side with my teammate here :D, but I’d also for C). So far, my idea for a scoring mechanism is to have two reliable/“standard” scoring mechanisms, and they require a total of one or two motors between them. Perhaps I haven’t been thinking outside the box with this one, but anything I can think of for having a universal scoring mechanism would be ultimately flimsy because the mechanism would have to adapt to shapes.
If i remember correctly though, a transmission still has idle motors from the locks. They also have a large force decay due to higher amounts of friction, and pressure angles of each system.
As for stability, that only comes with more materials. By creating 2 seperate mechanisms, you would have to make 2 storages. With that, that’s more materials. When making an adaptive unit, the trick is to reinforce the joint. a team can either make their own joint and combine the storages, lightening up weight, and use the excess in weight to reinforce the joint. The other alternative is to purchase a vex hinge seen here: http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex/products/accessories/structure/275-1272.html , which is quite stable.
On the other hand, if you have a single system, you have extremely easy operator simplicity and thus speed. with proper tweaking you could even control each manipulator separately as if you had 2 seperate mechanisms. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9COlZLjksRo
Notice how the bucky ball was the first thing to leave? by spinning the rollers, you can dump a bucky ball, then by spinning the motors back, you bring the large ball back into the storage. Then by repeating the process, you can dump all the bucky balls before the large ball and still maintain the same force and have higher reliability due to driver simplicity. As for speed, you can easily develop a program to do this for you.
There are ways to make transmissions that do not use a motor or servo and that have almost no loss or force decay. It is the exact same amount of loss as if it was a system with a motor and 2 gears driving something. Also there is no reason that you have to have a storage compartment for some designs. There are also way to make either of the scoring mechanisms totally passive so they use no motors freeing one or more up for other uses.
I agree there are teams that will make adaptive mechanisms that handle both very well. And for some this may be their path and it will work out well for them. The post asked what I thought was the best and for MY TEAM 2 distinct mechanisms is going to work better. Your team/s may be very different. Our entire design last year was based on hinges. They work well. I’m not sure what the hinges are related to.
If you have something that has to actively adapt to different sizes, then that is another motor that can be used else ware. I realize there are ways to do this passively but that is where Edjubuh and I believe that the flimsy (or overly flexible) joint will cause problems by its very nature. In our opinion this will lead to more problems that 2 separate scoring mechanisms will.
With the correct programming for both set-ups there should be no difference in simplicity of operation. Keep the code complex and the driver’s job simple. IMO Having to switch the intake into forward and reverse is more complex for the driver than having 2 different and distinctly separate mechanisms and controls. There is merit for all of the options I am just pointing out some of the advantages and challenges that come with each strategy. Just because it is right for my team does not mean that it has to be right for your team. I am just trying to provide information from a different viewpoint.
I too agree with my fellow teammate(ajo518). Well said, stability is key based on my past experience. I definitely do see the versatility of a mechanism that can handle both objects but I think testing, debugging and a some what sophisticated program should be able to compensate for the addition motion of multiple mechanisms, therefore not put the processing stress on the driver.
I suppose that means I must carry the weight of complexity… I. AM. ATLAS! 
OK, that’s enough from our team. I think we’re taking over this thread guys.
If any of my previous messages come off smug or condescending, i’m quite sorry. I as well am curious what is your train of thought because I, myself could be on the wrong path. I’m sure there is something i can learn. Maybe we’re in similar situations, but i can’t tell
All that i’m drawing so far is that universal systems could be flimsy and they cant be tailored to each object. I thought with the hinges and elastic, systems would be extremely secure and have minimal friction. Especially since you’ve mentioned in the past that they worked well. With the video and driver example, i thought i also showed how they could be tailored to suit each object.
Reading from your posts though, many things are vague. I can’t tell whether you’re referring to pneumatics, automatic transmissions, funds, time, scoops, claws, rollers, conveyorbelts, etcetra. As a result, it almost seems closed. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing your ideas, that’s fine.
Our foray into hinges was with a tray. It doesn’t exactly apply to this year’s competition in any designs I’ve seen so far in that the hinge swing was directly controlled by a piston swing.
First off, I’d like to clarify what kind of universal system I’m talking about. I’m talking about a potential mechanism that uses the same parts to grab both large balls and buckyballs by changing the mecanism’s shape. For example, you could take a standard Gateway/Toss Up intake (similar to the video) with “arms” of treads on two sides. Those two arms were on hinges tensioned with rubber bands/latex tubing/something comparable with the intention getting around the sides of a buckyball and/or large ball. This would be the kind of flimsy application I’m talking about.
{
Our point is that (in our experience) having mechanisms passively react to the physical environment (like example above) results in the mechanism literally being flimsy. When I say passively react, I’m talking about elasticity, gravity, things of that nature. If you put too much resistance, your mechanism doesn’t react and doesn’t do its job; you put too little, it’ll be flimsy because it’ll like wobble around. Sure, it can be done, but in my experience, takes more time than it’s worth.
If you plan to have a mechanism that actively reacts to the physical environment (i.e. pneumatics, servos, motors), then your mechanism will be stronger because you are more in control of the motion. (see the tray)
} TL;DR: it’s better to have a mechanism which actively reacts to the physical environment than something that passively does so.
If you’re only referencing the mechanism on the video you shared, then we’re not talking about the same thing. If you are just only talking about the mechanism in the video, then that’s fine with me. I don’t agree with the general approach with it because it requires the robot to dump the large ball at the same time as the buckyballs, preventing a robot from potentially dropping all three buckyballs, then capping. In other words, this intake can only effectively pick up one type or the other in competition unless you follow the strategy that you laid out (which wastes time, IMO). In fact, the main scoring mechanism we’re looking into at the moment is very similar to the one in the video, but better address the problems I explained. Those plans, I don’t plan to share just yet . Otherwise, I don’t think I’m/we’re trying to hide anything. When we (potentially) do a reveal later in the year and you’d like to call shenanigans on the mechanism not being universal, then please do.
Your comments didn’t come off as smug nor condescending and I apologize if this post comes off as such. It’s hard to convey emotion through text.
My train of thought is this. So we have a limited number (10) motors to do the task. The whole challenge in vex is what you do with these. The trick is to allocate the motors in the most effective way. I think we all agree on this. My goal is the get the best performance with what we are given. My highest priority therefore is to score as fast as possible and in the most efficient manner.
You are correct I do not want to reveal exactly what we are doing. This is only natural as i would like to be as competitive as possible and let others think for themselves. I am however glad to help and point people in the right direction, so back to the point.
So i have allocated 2 motors for the scoring mechanism, not including the lift. Thus the challenge of having 2 mechanisms with 2 motors. Yes the intake in the video is a good unified solution. It is simple and i therefore appreciate its design. Similar strategies worked well in gateway where there was only one object and people have modified them to work with both. This is a fine strategy that there is noting wrong with. Building on what has been done before is a sure strategy to do something new and still know that it will work. I know this will work well for some. But i want to take it to the next level. Imagine being able to place 3 buckeyballs in the stash and then proceeding to cap it without having to go somewhere else and pick up the big ball. This would eliminate the time it would have taken to move to pickup the big ball. This aligns well with my goal of being as efficient as possible. There may be a way to make this work with a intake like shown in the video, but more control would need to be added to allow for this to work in the manner stated above.
My solution to this problem is to separate the 2 and go with 2 separate scoring mechanisms. This also allows for the scoring mechanisms to be specifically tailored to each object. To me this is also better because then i don’t have to make compromises. To me this is easier because it is like avoiding the can opener with the bottle opener on the other end that makes both hard to use. Instead i want to have 2 discrete tools that are easier and faster to uses as well as being more sturdy. Im not saying that there is no good option or no compromise that is worth it or that there is no combined option that will works well. I am just saying that it makes sense to me to have separate intakes. It also streamlines the design process. Breaking the big challenge down into 2 smaller challenges makes it easier to concur.
This presents the challenge of powering 2 mechanisms with only 2 motors. This is where people need to weight their options and make a decision. THis is where the design in the video has chosen a good option use the 2 motors to do both at the same time. The problem with this is that they lost some functionality in doing this. This is a compromise and the pros and cons must be carefully weighed. I believe that there is a better option. That is why i am saying have 2. There are lots of thing that could enable this: pneumatics, passive intakes, or something that uses gravity ect. Using these other methods brings in a whole new list of challenges, but it is something to consider.
This is where i don’t want to share more until later possibly. There are many ways to do it. Having a unified intake can defiantly work. The most fun that i have in vex and what makes it challenging and fun is taking the information that you have and making a decision and then dealing with the consequences and than being able to change/ modify that decision an see what works better.
i apologies if my previous post came off as accusatory or anything. I am just trying to be very clear and comprehensive.
I see where a unified intake is elegant and simple and thats fine. I just feel like there are better options. Im sorry if my previous post was not clear. I was not referring to anything specific. I was just suggesting that there were many options to consider within the vex ecosystem. This includes pneumatics as well as transmissions. I didn’t want to say anything to specific as to say that other things wont work well. I was just trying to convey that there are lots of choices. Yes my post was slightly closed and i don’t want to say what we are doing exactly.
Also in my designs i try to minimize the maintenance and minimize the chance of failure. Rubber bands in a key system is not something that i want to have to rely on. They ware out and sometimes break. They need to be replaced and they perform differently depending on how long they have been used.
I do see the appeal of a unified system and it think that it is a good solution, but it is not for me. I do believe that a system with spinning rollers on hinges (allowing them to tilt to accommodate bigger objects) tensioned with elastic could work and be made sturdy. But once again, this brings up all the problems with rubber bands and elastic that i said above. My main point is not to discount either option when designing and to think about all of you options including single and dual intake systems using all the available parts (motors, pneumatic, rollers, treads, as well as elastic and rubber Bands), but make sure to carefully weigh the pros and cons of all of them.
also follow the advice in your signature and take advantage of every movement of the other systems. Thats the only hint i’m going to give you as to what we are doing. 
Good luck, Don’t get stuck with one idea, and chose wisely.
~Andrew
Fair enough. Whether it’ll come from design, drivers, programming, or strategy, time will only tell.
Good, friendly competition will always kick me into overdrive:D.
vote A for easy manipulating
I would actually like to vote for B. Specialization is key and if you can maneuver the fields at high speeds accurately it doesn’t matter if you can pick up large balls. As long as you can score that one object perfectly, cutting your efficiency in half is not worth it. Any ways, It’s usually not that hard to make a great buckyball intake work for the large balls easily if you are in dire need of the extra points.