6m Drive with 2 lifts while ignoring rings? or some other configuation. Thoughts?
2 Likes
people would probably have still taken the penalty I think. Would go from 6m drive back to 4m drive, but you can do a lot more with pneumatics than with the 2 motors you give up. Not many games would this have been remotely viable, but I think this one it would have been the move.
7 Likes
Some teams without pneumatics have already made this happen, with
4m drive
1m lift
1m rings
1m back tilter
1m front claw
I am fairly certain that the meta design would have remained relatively the same, albiet with motors used for the functions normally operated by pneumatics.
11 Likes
I’m not so sure about this. It’s easy to say that the advantages most teams get from pneumatics outweigh what they could’ve done with an extra two motors, however that comes from the perspective of watching a season that developed with teams trying to optimize their use.
For example, a game such as turning point might’ve been played a lot differently with no pneumatic penalty. There would’ve been pneumatic catapults, scrapers, and other mechanisms that nobody even thought of because they were looking at that game from a non-pneumatic perspective. Imagine a turning point robot that developed in a season with no pneumatic penalty. I think it would be very easy for that team to say “yeah, we definitely get more use out of pneumatics than we could’ve with two motors”. However, turning point did have a pneumatic penalty, and thus the vast majority of teams weren’t trying to optimize the use of pneumatics for that game.
If the 2 motor penalty was around this year, I think most teams would’ve approached this game differently. 6 motor drives would definitely be less common, and 8 motor drives would be virtually non-existent. The meta could be entirely different, maybe teams wouldn’t want to dedicate motors to having clamps, and instead would utilize more passive ways to manipulate mobile goals, who knows? All I can say is that we approached this game from the mindset of, “let’s try to use pneumatics for as many things as possible so that we can have more motors on our drives”, if the motor penalty still existed, that mentality wouldn’t be there, and teams would be approaching the game from a different point of view.
20 Likes
“Passive ways to grab the goals” after this game is over, remind me to post about the hook design I made. It actually worked amazing
2 Likes
I think that this design would certainly be the most common, I don’t think it would be the best robot.
I think the winning specks would have been:
6 motor drive
1 motor lift
1 motor claw
Passive goal latch at the back
Ratcheted ring conveyor
4 Likes
100% this I think. At the start of the season we had one, and our clamp still has some key features that where in the passive clamp
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.