I’ve had a few discussions with people and I’m surprised with how few people are even willing to try to get a tier 3 climb right now. As far as I see this is basically a free 12-19 points in a game with a max score of 92 and an average score of 29, with only the negative corners and wall stakes left open for <10 seconds. 39% of the total points in a max scoring match come from climb.
Even if the other team does the MoA meta of camping the positive corners (32 points) you could counter that almost entirely in the last 10 seconds of the match with a double tier 3 with the high stake (31 points).
8682N came up with this design for a 22 W climb which while not currently functional, is not far from working with a gear ratio and some reinforcement. With how common PTO to a winch was last year the use of 22W don’t seem that bad to me when it can be on the drive train for 92% of the match.
I really don’t know why high level teams wouldn’t be getting this mech done as soon as possible for the huge skills boost and the basically guaranteed regional spot.
I’m curious what most people are thinking so vote with what you are currently working on and what you think you will end up with.
I do think that having a tier three climb at this point in the season would be an advantage because of its high point value. However, a full mobile goal being placed in the negative corner is still a 16pt swing (the 8pts of scored rings on that climb become worth 0pts, and also subtract 8pts from other rings), while tier three hang is only 12pts or 17pts with the high stake. Also, my team wants to focus on our ring scoring mechanisms first (we only started up a couple weeks ago) before we move on to climb.
Focusing on mobile goal scoring first makes total sense as that can be up to 50 points. I’m mostly confused why wall stake mechs got made first because that is a risky but possible to descore 16 points that takes 6 cycles to fully score. Instead of a 12-19 point mech that is safe from negative points and only takes 10 seconds to use.
In terms of strategy, it is very possible to have one team with a 10 second T3 and another with a 2 second T1 to guard the corners and wall stakes.
I think high climb is relatively underpowered because you have to dedicate significant development time / time in the match for a point swing you can achieve in easier ways.
With the current state of the rules, filling a 3rd mogo (+8), putting a mogo filled with your opponent’s color in the - zone (16pt swing), and winning auto (12pt swing) all provide similar value to T3 climb while not adding the complexity of a separate mechanism, making those options generally more appealing to teams.
I definitely think climb is very worth it if you can figure out how to do it (it’s 22 points for a t3 + t1 + high stake and 31 for double t3 + high stake, which are both higher then the swing for any other part of the game). I think the problem is that it’s just really hard to make a good climb. While the climb in that video looks like it might work, I don’t think it’s actually viable:
vex chain breaks under high stress and the design is very reliant on supporting the robot with chain
it takes up a ton of space on the robot, leaving little room for scoring on a mogo or wall stakes. Any climb mech would also probably be very heavy, which would make your robot drive worse and in this case would amplify #1
You need to reach really far past the edge of the drivetrain to be able to climb on the corner (6+ inches), and the weird expansion rules don’t help with that.
Notice how in the video they lift the robot over the support cone at the bottom, if they actually drove the robot to the corner it wouldn’t reach the ladder.
you could make the robot “wrap around” the cone to get the ladder closer to the center of the robot (which it looks like they are already partially doing and still have the problem), but this significantly amplifies #2 and introduces other problems too
Both 2 and especially 3 would apply to basically any climb on the corner, making it effectively impossible to make a corner climb unless there’s something major I missed.
This then leaves only climbing on the sides, which is still very hard because now you can’t stabilize the robot’s rotation with the vertical bar like you can in the corner, and the robot will start swinging a lot while you climb.
Then if you figure out how to stop swinging, the distance of the robot’s center of mass from the ladder will also function as a massive lever, putting a ton of force on whatever climb mechanism you use.
It’s also significantly harder to get the high stake if you don’t climb on a corner. You probably set your expansion side to the front to climb in the first place, so the weird expansion rules strike again and stop you from being able to reach out sideways to score the high stake.
While there could be some perfect design later in the season which gets around all of this and proves me wrong, I don’t think tier three is very viable (at least right now) because it’s just really hard. The only way I could see it working is with a significant number of compromises, and at that point the climb isn’t enough to help you against an alliance who can score rings efficiently.
Tier 3 climbs this early are going to be tricky. Apart from the inherent risk, time, and effort, a bot with a tier 3 climb will stand out in competitions, and everyone will be putting as much defense on you so that you cannot climb, or at least only be able to get on the first tier. Of course, since most of my competitive knowledge comes from FRC (where defense actually wins championships and doesn’t get you DQ’d), this might not be the whole truth, but it is nevertheless something to be weary about.
Interesting; it’s been a while since my last involvement with FRC (and when I was, I wasn’t significantly involved), but my impression has always been that VRC defense is more vigorous pound-for-pound than FRC.
Oh it definitely has. Swerve drive has made teams much more aggressive with defense, and my quote about defense winning championships comes from this season when the underdog alliance coming into the finals swept the best alliance of the whole championship with a combined 8 world championship rings.
IDK. I watched 3 matches billed as “heavy defense” and came away thinking FRC defense is “positional” while VRC defense is physical. Again, the 3 FRC matches (and the Holiday Inn that I stayed at last night) definitely qualifies me as an FRC expert, but in watching those matches, what really stood out to me was the lack of contact between robots.
looks like my list got turned into a code block for some reason, here it is in a more readable format
vex chain breaks under high stress and the design is very reliant on supporting the robot with chain
it takes up a ton of space on the robot, leaving little room for scoring on a mogo or wall stakes.
Any climb mech would also probably be very heavy, which would make your robot drive worse and in this case would amplify #1
You need to reach really far past the edge of the drivetrain to be able to climb on the corner (6+ inches), and the weird expansion rules don’t help with that.
Notice how in the video they lift the robot over the support cone at the bottom, if they actually drove the robot to the corner it wouldn’t reach the ladder.
You could make the robot “wrap around” the cone to get the ladder closer to the center of the robot (which it looks like they are already partially doing and still have the problem), but this significantly amplifies #2 and introduces other problems too
this will 100% happen, that was one of the main reasons high climbs last year were less viable then a fast c-tier, they were just so easy to defend because you had to climb early and spend time lining up precisely. I know if this year my team didn’t have a high climb and my opponent did, I would rather spend all of my time stopping them from climbing then climbing myself because of the sheer point difference between 12 and 3.
I’ve seen defense win matches and competitions all the time, like with the climb blocking from over under I just mentioned. If anything vrc defense is a lot more aggressive then frc from what I’ve seen (I’m not downplaying frc defense, there’s still a ton of strategy that goes into that, it’s just less violent).
@djschmit While a negative corner can be a 16 point swing, that requires either an undefended full goal, or filling up a goal for the other team and hoping you can get it to a corner in 10 seconds. The auton bonus is not really somthing you can control as high level teams are all going to have very similar, high scoring autons. This leaves wall stakes and climb, 1-16 point mech or 3-19 point mech, which is more useful? That along with the fact that it takes 6 collect and score cycles to fill both wall stakes and climb takes 10 seconds at the end of the match, I know which one I’m choosing.
@iseau395 I do agree that chain is weaker but there are solutions, such as having a second sprocket and chain on each side, reinforcing the chain. or switching to linear slides which have a higher chance of slipping, but could be compressed from both sides to prevent this.
In terms of size and weight I was planing on having my climb on the opposite side from my mogo clamp and on either side of the intake (planning on a lifting intake to get ring stacks). The intake would lift and there would be a gap in the front of the bot for the corner of the ladder to go in. The center of mass is closer to the intake so less leverage to fight against,
@thedudeJose I would think this is benifical as, “a good offense is the best defense.” If another team spends the engame stoping me from climbing, then I have effectively prevented them from doing anything else, if they don’t gaurd then I get my climb. Either way win for me.
Correct. It’s partly due to FRC’s bumpers. It is less about ramming yourself into the opponent and more about controlling chokepoints. I think by more aggressive I meant more persistent, swerve drive allows for a robot to stick to another for a longer period of time due to the omnidirectional travel.
I’m planning on going to the inside corner to climb, which should make it at least somewhat easier. that being said, the design I’m going for is definitely unorthodox (4 motors for climb with a robot that’s already very light), so I don’t know how practical it is for the majority of teams.
I was also considering going from the inside but it would require either smaller corners on the bot or a very bumpy ride up.
If you’re willing to share a quick sketch of the design that would be great. While probably unnecessary, I think its still viable if the 44W is on a PTO to the drivetrain so you still have 66W drive for most of the match. Last years high hangs tended to be 22W PTOs so its not unprecedented.
I’m using a holonomic kiwi drive that’s well under the size limit (as I said… unorthodox). I don’t have anything too specific planned yet, but the angled corners of the triangular frame should serve as good mounting points for climbing mechanisms. The climbing modules themselves will probably be a set of rack+pinion mechanisms and a pneumatic “holder” mechanisms that extends out and over the bar.
If it helps, I can probably take a picture of the drivetrain when I get back to school this Thursday.
Any specific reason for this? You get none of the speed or torque bonuses of a X-drive and it is much harder to mount mechanisms on. I would like to see what you have come up with though.
This could work (we’re doing the same with an X-drive) but some compensation for the angle will be required because a Kiwi drive would have a 60-degree angle and the corner of the ladder is 90 degrees.
This is the same thing we’re doing as well, however, we are trying to make the “holders” passive pieces that slide up as the rack moves up and locks down as it pulls down.
Overall this is a great start to a viable tier 3 and I’m excited to see where the rack and pinion goes.
what i am suprised nobody has suggested is a motorized 2 bar arm that grabs onto the pole and lifts the robot similar to teams d/e tier hangs for over under, this would be able to get a t2 hang with a pto, theoretically of course!
