Hey, I'm from 3539 - the refs in NJ, PA, and Hudson Valley all agree that our design is legal - It's legal based on the test of the definition (if you can pull the goal away from the robot and vice versa) from the forums. If you're unsure about what the forums say, you can always check out the FTC thread on Chief Delphi or email the head ref for your region.
It does have its downsides, though (as some of you already noted). I'd suggest looking into other design ideas. We definitely are. :P
would you really say that the problems are not just things that you can tweek into non-problems?
my team is thinking about building a design much like this one, and I would love to hear any advice you might have on it. (and if you really think we should abandon the idea, why?)
-Not enough space to create an effective, consistent dispensing mech.
We came up with an idea to fix the first one, but couldn't find enough space to make it. For the second one, you just need really, really good drivers. We have great ones and they still make mistakes like in the match above.
well they touch the bottom one and all the ones they push out and but also with that turn if u can move the robot in any direction (backwards) and the goal doesnt move with the robot it really isnt possession
I think the judges have made it pretty clear that if you turn and the goal turns with you, that IS illegal possession of the goal, but this method of "U-ing" it is extremely controversial. This is certainly pushing it haha
Also notice how long they take to get the goal over it.. It consistently gets STUCK under the bridge. :P
hybrid drive: wheels at corners, tank tread in middle of chassis for going over mountain
rjmjrmit81 1 year ago
@normalmutant
I cant wait to see you guys in delaware it will be a good tournament
4497 rhode burn
Kreilly15 1 year ago
@Kreilly15
Yeah! We're looking forward to it. See you there.
normalmutant 1 year ago
Hey, I'm from 3539 - the refs in NJ, PA, and Hudson Valley all agree that our design is legal - It's legal based on the test of the definition (if you can pull the goal away from the robot and vice versa) from the forums. If you're unsure about what the forums say, you can always check out the FTC thread on Chief Delphi or email the head ref for your region.
It does have its downsides, though (as some of you already noted). I'd suggest looking into other design ideas. We definitely are. :P
normalmutant 1 year ago
@normalmutant
would you really say that the problems are not just things that you can tweek into non-problems?
my team is thinking about building a design much like this one, and I would love to hear any advice you might have on it. (and if you really think we should abandon the idea, why?)
electrontic 1 year ago
@electrontic
Main problems:
-Really hard to get the goal into the cave
-Really hard to keep the goal in the cave
-Not enough space to create an effective, consistent dispensing mech.
We came up with an idea to fix the first one, but couldn't find enough space to make it. For the second one, you just need really, really good drivers. We have great ones and they still make mistakes like in the match above.
normalmutant 1 year ago
Comment removed
electrontic 1 year ago
well they touch the bottom one and all the ones they push out and but also with that turn if u can move the robot in any direction (backwards) and the goal doesnt move with the robot it really isnt possession
Kreilly15 1 year ago
@1bpddpb1
I think the judges have made it pretty clear that if you turn and the goal turns with you, that IS illegal possession of the goal, but this method of "U-ing" it is extremely controversial. This is certainly pushing it haha
Also notice how long they take to get the goal over it.. It consistently gets STUCK under the bridge. :P
FTC3415 1 year ago
ya its legal because if tou pull the robot backwards the rolling goal doesnt move with them. my question is is how many batons did they have?
Kreilly15 1 year ago
@1bpddpb1 to my understanding what they are doing is possessing, but i dont know either
siedpe13 1 year ago