@The_Rubber_Spoon
As long as you don’t underestimate 4478, I’m fine.
I am from 4478C and therefore am biased to 4478 and the teams we’ve worked with in CT.
And I know some 4478 teams have plans to compete against bots with plans like yours. So get ready, I believe we’ll see your team at our first competition on October 7th in Manchester.
I think this was a misunderstanding. I don’t expect 195A to just give up. I think their goal is to focus on having fun and if they win, then awesome, and if not then there is always next year. Either way I don’t see a problem and I don’t think they were undermining teams. No matter what I can’t wait to compete against what 195A makes this year. Good luck in October
I really like that you have teams that are directly thinking about us and preventing us from completing our objective. It shows that you are thinking about every possibility and planning ahead for any situation. Sometimes wish we did that on our team more. Unfortunately, we are not ready now, as we have not had our first meeting yet, so we will have to grind out the robot. Considering it is a drive base with some odds and ends attached to it, it should be ready quickly.
It depends on who is on the team that dictates what the objective is. We play to win everytime, but we are not spending 36 hour weekends in the shop trying to build a robot like in FRC. It is a more laidback atmosphere. Some people only do Vex for fun, while some do it for winning, and having fun while doing it.
Important note: The robot might be a team A or team C creation, as the student whom I am working with on this is a Sophomore, and A and C are underclassman teams. So he might end up on C, but that is not a big problem. I also recall that one of the Juniors wants to build a defense robot, so it might end up on team D, but it is unlikely. Keep building great robots 4478 and I may see you guys in the fall!
If there is a difference between the videos and the official q and a, the official q and a is the correct interpretation. This happened last year in starstruck. I’m on my mobile but I can look it up later.
I was talking about denying groups of cones, not MG’s. Hypothetically, once you collect all the MG’s you need, you would defend against any stationary goal stacking by using the 36" expansion maximum to physically block other robots…ALMOST using the Pin/Trap rules from the manual (on a side note, you could use the 36" extension to trap another robot instead of cones for 5 seconds as well). I also wonder if this is illegal, because the judges could say that you possess the cones.
I really like the full strategy, though. It seems that a fast enough robot could really screw with another team’s autonomous and driver-control scoring. I would consider using two things: 1) a very high-speed gear train on the front wheels for around-the-mat movement, and 2) a low-speed, high-torque gear train on the back wheels for precision movements (i.e. scoring your MG’s). With this (and some sort of cone collecting thing), there MIGHT be enough room on the chassis for defensive wall extensions. That way, one could effectively and quickly collect MG’s (during auton), score them (driver), and get back on the field for defensive plays. You may not even have to rely on alliance members, at this point, but I’m not sure.
Unfortunately, we really cannot do this with this current iteration, as if we collect 3 Mobile Goals, the 3rd and last one can be removed from the robot if the robot is driven backwards (Hopefully the team members can come up with some crazy way to trap all 3 inside the robot. That would be nice.). We can only do it with 2 Mobile Goals, as we will have a vertical linear sliding “door” which will prevent them from coming out. But, if we are only able to secure 2 Mobile Goals, then we would pursue a strategy of blocking other robots from using the Stationary Goal, grabbing cones for their Mobile Goal, blocking their zone entrance, or just playing heavy active defense.
I assume you are talking about a different design and not this specific one, as we have no intention of scoring Mobile Goals with this specific design. But I like the idea of it. It reminds me of 8059A (If you have not seen it, watch it). If I had to build a robot in 2 or 3 days after ours broke, I would do that (Mr. Clean 2.0). However, I am unsure of how the mechanism of fast front motors and low speed back motors would work, assuming that they have the same wheel size. Wouldn’t the motors be fighting against each other, the fronts pulling the backs, and the backs holding back the fronts? Unless you mean something else entirely.
Yes, I was mulling over a different design; your design and strategy is extremely solid as-is :). Sorry if that was too off-topic. I see the issue with those gear systems now… I guess there could be two ways to circumvent that: 1) Use only the high-speed gear ratios, and change the controller code so that, when you hold a certain button, it cuts the motor speed in half or more (I had this for Starstruck); 2) Attempt to integrate the old VEX clutch system (and if that doesn’t work, which it probably won’t, one would have to fabricate a custom clutch system…like a differential gearbox in a car). For building time’s sake, the second option is nearly impossible. It’d be fun to try, anyways :P.
The problem with what your saying is that you could only move one cone at a time, because in fact that would be hoarding, which is very strictly defined in the rules as using it for later, which you are using them by denying them to any other teams. So with that rule in place you could theoretically do that, but only one cone at a time and very carefully, you could deny one of the corners to your opponent, however they would have the entire rest of the field to work with, and would effectively be playing a 2v1 without access to those cones.
@9065_parker
I see the issue…
I guess that could be a secondary goal, as the robot could theoretically still grab the local Mobile Goal and stack cones on it without interference from someone else, if the extensions were included. Maybe the extensions could be on the back of the robot, so it doesn’t “contain” any of the cones, allowing the robot to work on stacking and scoring. Would that still violate the rule? It would solve the 2v1 problem, at least…
yeah, its legal as long as its for pushing them out of the way, however when you push them out of the way into the corner, your automatically violating the rules via denying them to other teams. Weather or not a ref would call you on it is a different story, however its still technically illegal. Even just pushing them with a flat piece of metal violates the rule, as its no longer based on how you push them, only your reason for doing so. While i’d love for cone hoarding to be legal, it simply isn’t, and no amount of pleading to the gdc will change that.
I reccomend using your cortex as the main structural component. Really helps save weight.
Thanks, but our robot design does not really facilitate this, or having a “main” structural component. However, we do intend on mounting the Cortex in such a way that stiffens the robot up, considering it is basically a hollow metal box. In addition, we do not intend on saving weight with this, as in this specific case, we want more weight rather than less weight. The more weight we have, the more static and kinetic friction we have, and thus the more traction we have. As we are pushing 12lbs worth of mobile goals, we want to make sure that we will not break traction with the floor. This also helps with getting pushed from the side as well.
He was joking. That would be a terrible idea.
@Aponthis I assumed that he was. But that did give me the idea to use the Cortex as a piece to stiffen the superstructure of the robot.