Hi everyone. I wanted to ask if there were any solutions to a conundrum I found while pondering how to make an effective scoring mechanism that could efficiently score the balls in both the lower and upper targets.
My initial thought was to use a multiple shelves-like mechanism, but then I realized that the 15’’ height limit would not be enough to create something of that proportion, as the top of the lower targets are already 15’’ off the field.
After that, I assumed the best course of action to take would be a catapult-style object that launches balls into the goals, when I ran into another issue. The only way to score in both upper and lower targets would be to decrease the motor velocity for different targets, which seemed like a hassle to begin with for the drivers.
Then, to add even more to the problem, the decrease in velocity would decrease both vertical and horizontal movement, so you would need to get closer to the target in order to score.
Does anyone know a more efficient way to do this without having this essentially complete removal of efficiency?
In my opinion, a puncher is a good system for scoring and can be consistent if done correctly. You would need an angle changer for the puncher to get in the goal, but make sure it’s not over the hight limit.
Instead of adjusting the velocity of the shooting mechanism (e.g. the catapult in your scenario) why not just drive/position the robot closer/farther based on the upper or lower targets?
Also remember that you literally only need to take out the two top switches and then you can score the rest in the lower targets. So that could incense your design.
Thanks for the feedback. I think your idea would work, but it could decrease the accuracy since you would have to get it to a certain position for it to be effective each time.
I’m bringing this topic back to say that a flywheel is not effective. I don’t know if it’s because of the gear ratio or something else, but it’s just not good at scoring and is very weak for me. A more effective scoring mechanism is a double ball shooting catapult or a linear cannon-pult. I am currently making CAD of my idea and will possibly post later in this thread.
Thanks!
I was slightly hesitant to build a flywheel anyway as I saw the Ben Lipper flywheel robot for pitching in and it didn’t look as effective as the catapult. Another challenge could have been the angle of the flywheel. I still think that a catapult will be best.
My team are experimenting with a few designs and I can post some of my findings here
Let me start off by saying that even though someone made something and it’s executed “bad” doesn’t mean that an idea is off the table because you can iterate and come with new ideas to fix it. And yes while it’s easy to say that if someone who is skilled couldn’t do it so I can’t do it either is to undermine the whole point of vex and robotics as a whole. You should always innovate, test, and repeat until you have a product you are satisfied with.
Anyways, catapults and flywheels are both good with proper execution and in different senses. For example here are some pros and cons
Flywheels
Pros
Has greater control over velocity and greater * control on how you want something to be * launched
Relatively small
Doesn’t rely on a part that’s easily broken
Cons
Can quickly overheat motors
Has to use a gear ratio
Ideally has to be as frictionless as possible
Catapults
Pros
Easier to motor share
Can be loaded at the front of the robot
Easier to setup
Cons
Takes up a lot of space
Uses rubber bands that break often
Have to reinforce certain parts or catapult could break
These are just some pros and cons that I could list.
However, some ideas to make a flywheel viable is by either making a set angle and adjusting power with a certain distance away to either hit top or bottom. Or by adding an adjustable ramp by using a pnemautic like the flywheel robots in spin up vex v5 .
Yes, my first thought of this game was a flywheel but the speed won’t get high enough so my second idea was a puncher-pult. It would be like a nerf gun. We would use the shock absorber pieces to make high tension. Use this along with rubber bands and this could be very good for speed and getting both goals. This is my personal idea that I am making a CAD for. Anyway, good luck on this season!
Harder to make? I’d have to disagree. A good flywheel will be more efficient. As long as the space between the flywheels is smaller than an average ball’s diameter. It should work as well as a catapult, if not better. Pair that with an angular adjuster and it will work even better.
Search YouTube for a recent video from an early season competition (appears to be in China) that uses a flywheel. It’s a crazy build and one of the first effective uses of a flywheel for Rapid Relay that I’ve seen.
Not sure if I’m allowed to link YouTube videos here…so I’ll not do that just to be safe.
I have to disagree with you. A weakness could just be caused by a wrong gear ratio. Catapults, in my opinion, are also less reliable, as rubber bands could snap or come unhooked. Flywheels do not have that weakness. Changing your gear ratio or just elevating your shooting platform could fix the weakness. Flywheels also allow you to control how fast you want to shoot or better control of velocity.
I do have to correct myself in this thread, before I tried a flywheel that would not launch very efficiently, but I later found out that a flywheel could be used if built correctly. My mistake!
