hmm, very true, although I still think a flywheel will be the best solution.
To add on to that, the 2-ball possession rule may cause us to design smaller intakes (in that it will bave a smaller ball capacity) than in Nothing but Net (which had a 4-ball possession rule). Those balls don’t get going until they meet the flywheel, so I imagine that the mechanics would be the same, just with a smaller intake. The smaller intake would also lead to more room on the robot for the cap mechanisms.
yeah, that’s what I mean. the drive train’s pretty obvious, a 4-motor hs or 6-motor turbo with the biggest wheels. the trick is going to be the sizing, compacting 2 intakes on one robot that cannot expand on parts of the field.
An idea I had is since you’ll only be allowed six motors with pistons, is that you make a four motor transmission that switches power from the drive train to the ball launcher. That leaves room for two motors for an arm and a cap grabber.
that’s a good idea. I probably won’t be using v5 next year unfortunately, but for those v5 users, it should work great.
we were thinking of using a puncher for the balls or even a flywheel. Lookin at the NBN bots might be good but they tend to be super bulky. Even all steel might be a good choice for the high park bonus.
With smaller balls and smaller possession capacity, the ball mechanisms should be smaller than in NBN.
For next year (I’ll be doing Vex U) we plan on a robot that can lift caps and one that can intake balls and shoot them. As well as giving both a simple mechanism to allow them to flip caps that are on the ground. I’d imagine for Vex U that it would be popular to have the smaller bot handle the collecting and shooting.
Not sure it would be worth it, but I wonder if anyone doing VEX U is considering one robot to carry another one. While a few motors are essentially wasted, this would essentially allow a many-motor robot that stands up to 36" tall. It’s probably not worth the lack of being in two places at once, though. But you could surely manage a great parking bonus with that much mass and as many motors devoted to motion as you could have that way.
What about a puncher on the backside and like a claw or forklift on the front side?
There are other ways to get 2 robots in the same parking space 
I know that. This would allow other stuff, like carrying four balls in the same bigger robot. You could drive right up to the high flags and shoot with ease. I was just highlighting that one bit. I still doubt it’s worth it, but I haven’t spent much time considering it.
Would it be feasible to have a 2 motor 1 pneumatic 4 wheel drive base? each motor powering 1 wheel and pneumatic tube powering 2 wheels.
but why? it just doesn’t seem like enough of a practical benefit. in fact, if you really build lightweight this year, a 2 motor drive could be a thing.
It would be VERY advantageous to be able to shoot 4 balls and flip 4 flags in the last few seconds from a parked position. 
+1
it wouldn’t be too difficult to create a little place where the balls wait to be shot out of.
This doesn’t give you a double parking bonus because one robot wouldn’t be touching the platform; so you would score 6 points as opposed to the full 12 for a double park unless you had the top robot extend through the bottom one to touch the platform.
Remember that you can only possess 2 balls at a time 
not if you juggle 'em
right, forgot about that. juggle is new meta