it seems the claw and intake (vertical or at a ~45 angle) are going to be common but might not be the best option but i think the vertical one will end up being the most effective for the game and most teams will go for the above options and perfect them
I like the concept but vertical barrels will be the bane of your existence. I’ve got something else in mind…
What else do you have in mind?
We’ve already started designing something different, because of this very reason. It’ll probably take a while to get it working really well, but we’ll see what happens.
~Jordan
You should probably just focus on improving the intake itself, but I don’t know what else you are thinking of so I can’t really speculate.
This is exactly what we’re hoping to work on. Probably trying to add side-rollers. (one on the left, and one on the right) That way, we should be able to pick up the Barrels in any configuration. Also we need to build our new drive, which is also being changed from the CAD shown here.
I promise we will continue posting as we make more CAD models and change the robot! 
~Jordan
Is that all the videos you had?
Good job at the tournament.
I was quite skeptical about this intake. I was thinking about it, but thought it wouldn’t do so well. You proved me wrong. 
Maybe my team will reconsider this idea.
Great minds think alike. I was thinking about that why don’t you add rollers on the side. You were faster at posting it 
I do have a few more, and unfortunately I never got around to uploading them to YouTube. I wish I had been able to get video of the Finals, as they were very exciting (especially the last Finals match), but my iPod ran out of space. 
Oh well, but I do still have a couple more videos, and I’ll try to get them posted tomorrow night.
~Jordan
Alright Thanks. To bad you couldn’t finals must of been a sight to see. Since teams robots at that time should be really good.
I wouldn’t make such a quick judgment. Without having built the design myself, I can think of a few simple ways to bypass that problem.
I’m confident that he will fix the problem, I’m just saying our tests revealed that those vertical barrels are quite annoying.
I’ve been jumping from concept to concept for weeks, but I’m curious to know if you or anyone has tried a parallel tank tread system similar to what was seen on many Elevation grippers.
As of now this has been the only design we’ve even started on. We had only 3/4 meetings to get a working robot for this tournament, so we had to go with the one design that seemed promising. Hopefully now since we have a big gap (for now our next tournament is the one we’re hosting in October) we will be able to work a lot more on designs and “perfecting” them.
~Jordan
Fourth video: VEX Gateway June 11 REX Tournament 24C Match 4 - YouTube
Fifth video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWbtVO8gkxc
First Robot Skills Run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu1td-p87GM
Second Robot Skills Run: [VEX Gateway June 11 REX Tournament 24C Robot Skills Run 2 - YouTube
~Jordan](VEX Gateway June 11 REX Tournament 24C Robot Skills Run 2 - YouTube)
are you thinking what I’m thinking? 
also, legomindstormsmaniac, how come your robot is almost allways in the isolation zone?
CAD drive train comments:
- Observation: The front wheels are powered by a long slack chain from the rear wheels. A short chain length from each driving to driven sprocket seems like it would provide better response.
Arm (Scissor mechanism in 4-bar mode) lift suggestions:
- Powering the lower arm instead of the upper would
1 let you mount the upper arm on a higher shoulder,
2 lower the CG a little.
Mainly because our alliance partners tended to prefer the Interaction Zone. We only started in the Interaction Zone once or twice in the entire tournament.
Observation on the drivetrain is correct, and I’m hoping to make a much better drivetrain next, which will probably end up being an “H-drive”.
Suggestion for the arm is a good point, and something I somehow completely forgot in my quick CAD and build time, even though we did this on our robot last year. I am working on the new CAD models now and hopefully will have them all done in a week or two.
~Jordan
Has anyone thought of combining the claw design and vertical intake design. You could have the claw just like in round up allowing very fast picking up of barrels/balls. Then you could put vertical rollers in the left and right side allowing you to be able to drop balls one at a time or all at once by opening the claw. Also with the claw you would be able to lift the barrel in all orientations.
Another thing, has anyone actually done the math and found the best way to get the most amount of points in the match(theoretically of course)?
And one last thing. I’ve been talking with my team and were not sure that an omnipresent drive will work for us so I was wondering what kind of drive would be good for us. We were looking to do a u shaped chassis. Would need to be able to move an average sized round up claw robot. Oh left one thing out, we were hoping to use high strength chain. If not that’s ok.
My team will hopefully be making an omnipotent drive. You should hope your drive is omnipresent or else you will need to tighten a few screws.
Omni drive is short for omnidrectional drive/holonomic drive
There’s one in Legomindstormsmaniac’s videos. Also, we tried it (and we’re not moving forward with it). It wasn’t executed too well, but the quick version of the design we threw together in 3 hours told us a few things:
First, that it’s going to be heavy almost no matter what you do. Tread is annoyingly weighty, and trying to replace it with surgical tubing gives you all kinds of slipping issues.
Second, that it’s slow. In Elevation you were intaking 4" objects… the wait to suck up a six-incher feels painfully long by comparison. Gearing adds more weight.
Finally, that another design we prototyped handles the vertical barrels as well or better. Given that the double intake’s only obvious initial advantage was the ability to handle any orientation…
I’m not saying that the double conveyor intake can’t work; in fact, I am a firm believer in it. Good robots with the double conveyor intake can exist, and it certainly can work–in three hours we built something that could take the tubes from start to finish. I just don’t think it’s as promising as certain other designs.
Theoretically the maximum score involves having 7 goals with 1 object each in them, and 2 goals with 7/8 objects doubled. Then, the score is 48. However, I don’t see how you can fit 8 objects + doubler in a goal, and it is almost impossible to get the opponent’s doubler barrel.
I personally like the robots that don’t have to lift their arm all the way to 30" because the objects come out of the top of their intake.