SPARTAN 2822 — Internal Team Resource Public reference site →
📊 FLEET ANALYSIS · PER-BOT MATRIX

Fleet Manipulator Matrix — Per-Bot Compatibility

A 9×5 compatibility grid: every bot in the fleet (Skimmer, Pelican, Spoonbill, Osprey, Kite, Owl, Heron, Falcon, Crane) scored against every manipulator (Tube A, Tube B, V5 claw, pneumatic pincer, flex-wheel pivot intake). Folds in lift-orientation behavior, motor/air budget after the lift's own draw, R24 piece budget after the bot's structure, and architectural fit. Used to decide which manipulator each bot should commit to and which alliances are mechanism-failure-robust.

📋 Source & Scope
Mechanism-level scoring (per-mechanism criteria matrix, manipulator trade-offs, R24 fabrication detail) lives at /element-capture-prototypes. This page is the fleet-level synthesis: how each bot's architecture lands against each available end-effector, with alliance-selection implications.
SECTION 0 / 2

The 9×5 Compatibility Matrix

Scores 1–5: 5 = deployed or primary recommendation; 4 = strong candidate; 3 = viable but suboptimal; 2 = poor fit; 1 = incompatible. Each cell carries a status tag and a one-line reason. Bots are listed in build-maturity order (active builds first by team letter, concepts last). Highlighted rows mark each bot's strongest pairing.
Bot / lift Tube A
(pin)
Tube B
(cup)
V5 Claw
(cup)
Pneu. Pincer
(cup)
Flex-wheel
pivot intake
(cup & pin)
Skimmer
2822A · 2-bar swing arm
5
DEPLOYED
pin's orientation insensitivity makes the swing-arm flip a non-issue
1
INCOMPAT.
swing-arm flip dumps cup mid-arc; cinch rim-grip unstable through orientation reversal
2
POOR
claw flips with the arm; cup drops at θ=180° unless a 5.5W wrist counter-rotates
2
POOR
same orientation problem as the claw
1
ARCH-MISMATCH
swing-arm rotation already does the orientation work; pivot at the manipulator duplicates that with no architectural gain
Pelican
2822C · four-bar lift
3
VIABLE
four-bar's orientation preservation is wasted on a pin; claw mount already there
3
REBUILD-COST
four-bar IS the right lift; but Pelican is actively building with claw — switch = late-season rework
5
DEPLOYED
combo-capable, orientation preserved, motor cost accepted
4
SUBSTITUTE
drop-in for claw to free a motor port if air budget allows
2
REBUILD + WASTE
four-bar preserves orientation natively without a pivot; rebuild manipulator + loses V5 claw simplicity for no scoring benefit
Spoonbill
2822D · four-bar + claw rotation
2
ROTATION-WASTE
claw-rotation gearbox is the architectural point; Tube A discards the active wrist entirely
2
REBUILD + WASTE
same rebuild-cost as Pelican; cinch rim-grip doesn't benefit from the rotation gearbox
5
DEPLOYED + UNIQUE
V5 claw + 5.5W rotation gearbox = fleet's only orientation-active end-effector (pin-flip, cup-invert, combo-order)
3
SUBSTITUTE
drop-in for claw to free claw motor; loses variable-force grip used during orientation work
3
PARALLEL
Owl is exactly this swap — orientation control via pneumatic pivot instead of 5.5W claw-rotation gearbox; equally valid, different mechanical implementation
Osprey
2822E · chain bar
4
SECONDARY
chain bar handles tube cleanly; pincer is the deployed primary, tube is the documented alt
4
UPGRADE
chain bar preserves orientation; Tube B + chain bar is a near-Heron pairing
4
ALTERNATIVE
swap pincer for claw if air budget tightens; loses pneumatic-advantage story
5
DEPLOYED
pincer + chain bar is the V1.5 chain-bar variant's committed config
3
RETROFIT
chain bar preserves orientation; existing pneumatic plumbing absorbs the new cylinder cheaply; loses committed-cycle simplicity
Kite
2822F · four-bar + shared-shaft
3
REBUILD-COST
four-bar is the right lift but Kite is actively building with V5 claw — switching to tube = late-season rework, same calculus as Pelican
3
REBUILD-COST
same rebuild-cost story; Tube B's cinch grip doesn't gain over Kite's V5 claw simplicity
5
DEPLOYED
V1.0 baseline manipulator; the shared-shaft architecture lives at the lift, not the claw — manipulator choice is independent of the power-transmission innovation
4
SUBSTITUTE
drop-in for claw to free the claw motor port; adds pneumatic plumbing Kite doesn't currently have; uses Kite's 16.5W headroom on plumbing instead of a future motor
2
REBUILD + WASTE
rebuild manipulator + add pneumatic plumbing for no shared-shaft synergy; the shared-shaft narrative doesn't depend on what's at the arm tip
Owl
2822O · four-bar (Spoonbill chassis) + pneumatic pivot
2
PIVOT-WASTE
pneumatic-pivot manipulator is the architectural point; Tube A on a non-pivoting mount discards the pivot mechanism entirely (analogous to Spoonbill's ROTATION-WASTE)
2
REBUILD + WASTE
rebuild cost + pivot mechanism is wasted; Owl committed to an active rolling intake, not a passive cinch grip
3
SUBSTITUTE
essentially reverts Owl to Spoonbill (V5 claw on the same chassis); loses dual-source pickup and active intake; viable downgrade if pneumatic pivot proves unreliable
3
SUBSTITUTE
uses Owl's existing pneumatic infrastructure; loses the active rolling intake; binary jaw grip replaces compression-grip dynamics
5
DEPLOYED + UNIQUE
active 4-flex-wheel pivot intake; horizontal for field, vertical for loader; pneumatic mode switch — the fleet's only mode-switching manipulator
Heron
stacked reach (4-bar + chain-bar EE)
3
OVERKILL
stacked reach is wasted capacity on a pin specialist
5
PRIMARY (theory)
stacked reach + cinch-grip cup tube = highest-reach combo-capable pairing in the fleet
4
FALLBACK
stacked reach + claw works; loses the polycarb-cinch advantage Tube B brings
4
FALLBACK
stacked reach + pincer; trades motor for air vs. claw variant
2
OVERCOMPLICATED
stacked reach is already 2 lifts; adding a manipulator pivot is a 3rd DOF that costs build complexity without proportional reach gain
Falcon
4-DOF arm
2
ARM-WASTE
arm's orientation control is wasted on a pin (pin held loosely, orientation irrelevant)
4
VIABLE
Tube B at the wrist; arm DOF orients cup mouth-up regardless of approach angle
5
CANONICAL
4-DOF arm + claw is the textbook super-clawbot config
4
STRONG
pincer at the wrist; same architecture, pneumatic substitution
1
REDUNDANT
4-DOF arm already orients the end-effector at any angle; a separate manipulator pivot duplicates capability the arm provides natively
Crane
six-bar vertical lift
2
LIFT-MISMATCH
vertical reach mismatches pin pickup, which happens at low loader height
4
SPECIALIST
vertical lift + Tube B for high-goal cup placement; single-motor lift leaves room for cinch
5
MOTOR-RICH
Crane's motor headroom (single-motor lift) absorbs claw cost cheapest in the fleet
4
VIABLE
pincer fits but doesn't capitalize on Crane's motor headroom (pincer is motor-free anyway)
3
RETROFIT
six-bar preserves orientation cleanly; absorbs the pivot mechanism; gives Crane dual-mode pickup it currently lacks

How to Read a Row

Each row is one bot's slate. The cell with the highest score is the recommended primary; cells at 4 are credible alternates. Two patterns to watch for:

💡
What this matrix does NOT score. Cycle time, autonomous coding load, driver muscle memory, and shop-floor build hours are all real factors that don't appear here. Treat the matrix as the first-pass engineering filter; layer the operational factors on top before final commitment. Driver familiarity in particular can swap a 4 and a 5 if drivers have hundreds of hours on one manipulator and zero on the other.
SECTION 1 / 2

Per-Bot Recommendation

Direct reading of the matrix — primary manipulator per bot, plus the fallback if the primary fails to land (build problems, motor budget shifts, role reassignment). Use this as the per-bot commitment statement at the next coach meeting.
BotRecommendationIf primary fails / role shifts
SkimmerTube A (committed). Pin specialist; lock the build.No cup option viable on this architecture. Role doesn't shift.
PelicanV5 claw (deployed). Stay the course.Swap to pincer if a motor port is needed for an autonomous mechanism (e.g., a sensor-driven align).
SpoonbillV5 claw + 5.5W rotation gearbox (deployed). The fleet's only active-wrist bot — preserve the orientation-flip capability.Pincer drops the claw motor at the cost of variable-force grip; only swap if the active wrist proves unreliable in bench tests.
OspreyPneumatic pincer (deployed). Highest-upside upgrade path: Tube B if the team has polycarb fab cycles to spare.Tube A is the documented secondary for pin-only match strategies.
KiteV5 claw (deployed). V1.0 baseline manipulator; the architectural divergence is at the lift transmission, not the manipulator.Pneumatic pincer if motor port becomes the binding constraint — Kite's 16.5W headroom absorbs the new pneumatic plumbing cleanly.
OwlFlex-wheel pivot intake (deployed). The architectural commitment; dual-source pickup (loader + field) from a single mechanism via pneumatic mode switch.V5 claw (reverts to Spoonbill) if the pivot mechanism proves unreliable; pneumatic pincer if active rolling intake stalls but the existing pneumatic infrastructure should be preserved.
HeronTube B (theoretical ceiling pairing). Highest-reach combo-capable bot in the fleet.V5 claw is the lowest-risk fallback if Tube B fabrication doesn't converge in time.
FalconV5 claw (canonical for 4-DOF arm).Pincer if motor port becomes the binding constraint; Tube B if a cup specialist role is needed.
CraneV5 claw (plays to motor headroom).Tube B if vertical-reach cup specialist is the alliance role; pincer doesn't gain Crane much over claw.

Commitment Status by Bot

The recommendation is the "should" answer; the "is" answer per bot is currently:

BotManipulator statusLock-in point
SkimmerTube A in fabrication queue per the R24 audit. Path A roller separately documented.Already past architectural decision; bench tests in progress.
PelicanV5 claw mounted; four-bar lift in active build per Pelican page.Already past architectural decision; tuning the claw close angle and lift PID.
SpoonbillV5 claw + claw-rotation gearbox in active build per Spoonbill page. Dual-flex-wheel toggle in build queue.Already past architectural decision; building the rotation gearbox and toggle.
OspreyPneumatic pincer planned; chain bar architecture committed. Tube A listed as secondary.End-effector commitment pending alliance role decision.
KiteV5 claw on four-bar lift; shared 2×11W output shaft drives both arm (5:1 torque) and toggle (1:2.67 speed) per Kite page.Past architectural decision; bench-testing shared-shaft decoupling strategy (one-way clutch direction).
Owl4-flex-wheel pivot intake on pneumatic mode-switch; Spoonbill-derived chassis (four-bar + center tower + dual rear toggle) per Owl page.Past architectural decision; bench-testing flex-wheel durometer for cup-vs-pin grip and pivot geometry for the 90° mode switch.
HeronConcept stage. Manipulator unspecified in Heron page (swappable claw / pincer / tube).Architectural decision still open; this matrix should drive it.
FalconConcept stage. Manipulator unspecified (swappable).Architectural decision still open.
CraneConcept stage. Vertical lift only; manipulator unspecified.Architectural decision still open.
🎯
Decision items for the next coach meeting. The three concept bots (Heron, Falcon, Crane) all need explicit manipulator commitments before CAD work proceeds. Heron is the priority: it's the bot where the matrix breaks new ground (Tube B as primary), and committing to that means committing to Tube B fabrication. Falcon and Crane both have V5 claw as the recommended primary, which is low-risk; the decision is mostly "yes/confirm" rather than "explore alternatives."

What Each Commitment Costs

CommitmentAdds to the team's build queueAdds to R24 piece budget
Skimmer + Tube AAlready queued.1 piece (tube) + 2 pieces (clamshell funnel, if used) = up to 3 pieces.
Pelican + V5 clawAlready queued.0 pieces (commercial).
Spoonbill + V5 claw (rotating)Already queued. Adds: claw-rotation gearbox build (5.5W gear train).0 pieces (commercial claw + metal gearbox).
Osprey + pincerAlready queued.0 pieces (commercial).
Kite + V5 clawAlready queued. Adds: shared-shaft sprocket train + decoupling clutch (one-way bearing or sprag) on either arm or toggle output.0 pieces (commercial claw).
Owl + flex-wheel pivotNew: 4-flex-wheel intake body fab (2 arms, 4 wheel mounts), 1 pneumatic cylinder + plumbing for the pivot, lever-arm mount, single chain to drive all 4 wheels.0–2 pieces (any polycarb back-stop or mount plates; arms can be metal).
Heron + Tube BNew: clamshell fab session (2 heat-form sessions + seam alignment), 3D print prototype iteration.2 pieces (clamshell halves) + optional 2 (funnel) = up to 4 pieces.
Falcon + V5 clawEnd-effector mount on the arm wrist; arm-tip motor budget allocation.0 pieces.
Crane + V5 clawEnd-effector mount on the parallelogram platform.0 pieces.

Fleet total R24 piece commitment (worst case, all funnels): 3 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 4 + 0 + 0 = 9 polycarb pieces across all nine bots. Each bot's individual 12-piece budget is comfortably under. The fleet-wide commitment remains heavily concentrated on Skimmer and Heron, the two polycarb-fabrication bots; Owl adds at most 2 pieces for optional back-stop or mount plates.

SECTION 2 / 2

Fleet Meta Read

Aggregating across the matrix — what's the dominant fleet pattern, which bots are at which tier, and which alliances are the strongest. This is the layer above the per-bot recommendation: it asks "given the fleet we have, what's the best alliance picture?"

The Dominant Pattern

The dominant fleet pattern is combo-capable + orientation-preserving lift. The seven bots that meet both criteria (Pelican, Spoonbill, Osprey, Kite, Owl, Heron, Crane — plus Falcon if you count arm-driven orientation control) are the bots that can score the highest-value play in Override — the pin-in-cup combo as a single cycle (SC3). Skimmer, the only swing-arm bot in the fleet, scores well in isolation as a pin specialist but is structurally locked out of the combo play.

This isn't an accident of the fleet's design; it reflects Override's scoring rules. SC3 rewards nested pins inside cups, which means a bot that can transport a pin-in-cup combo without dropping the pin scores 2 things at once. Two single-element bots cycle twice for the same points; a combo bot cycles once. Cycle math favors combo, so the fleet's mechanism choices have converged on it.

Bots by Tier

TierBotWhat it gets you
Deployed meta Pelican (four-bar + V5 claw)
Spoonbill (four-bar + rotating V5 claw)
Kite (four-bar + V5 claw + shared shaft)
Owl (four-bar + pneumatic-pivot flex-wheel intake)
The fleet's mature combo-capable V1.0 builds. Pelican is the standard combo bot — orientation preserved natively, commercial claw drops in. Spoonbill adds a 5.5W claw-rotation gearbox for the fleet's only active-wrist capability (pin-flip on hex faces, cup-invert, deliberate pin-on-cup combo ordering during transit). Kite adds shared-shaft power transmission for 16.5W of wattage headroom — the fleet's most motor-budget-flexible build. Owl adds a pneumatic-pivot active intake for native dual-source pickup (loader + field) without chassis reorientation. Four different ways the V1.0 architecture can be specialized; together they cover the most variations on combo-capable scoring in the fleet. Win the "what we can field this month" question.
Theoretical ceiling Heron (stacked reach + Tube B) Cinch-grip security beats friction grip; stacked reach beats single lift on goal access. Two-piece clamshell fabrication is the risk. Wins the "if everything builds clean" question.
Strong alternates Osprey (chain bar + pincer)
Crane (six-bar + claw)
Falcon (4-DOF arm + claw)
Each is combo-capable with a different trade: Osprey trades motor for air, Crane plays motor headroom into reach, Falcon plays arm DOF into alignment flexibility. Pick by the alliance's missing piece.
Specialist Skimmer (swing arm + Tube A) Pin-only by architecture. Strongest as the fast partner to a combo bot — Skimmer feeds pins, combo bot stacks them. Solo meta is weak; alliance partner meta is strong.

Alliance Pairings

A two-bot alliance is the basic unit of competition. The matrix reads cleanly into pairings:

PairingQualityStrengths / risks
Pelican + Heron BEST Deployed meta + theoretical ceiling, different lift architectures. Pelican covers the floor; Heron covers the ceiling. Risk: contingent on Heron's Tube B build coming together — if Heron stays a concept, this pairing becomes Pelican + nothing.
Pelican + Spoonbill BEST DEPLOYED Two deployed combo bots, complementary end-effector roles. Pelican handles standard combos at speed; Spoonbill's active wrist handles edge cases (flipped pins, inverted cups, deliberate pin-on-cup ordering). Highest ceiling among currently buildable pairings. Risk: shared four-bar architecture means lift-PID or claw-motor-heat failures affect both bots in parallel.
Pelican + Osprey ROBUST Two deployed combo bots, different mechanisms and different lifts. Robust to one mechanism failing — if claw breaks, pincer keeps scoring; if air system fails, claw keeps scoring. Lower ceiling than Pelican + Spoonbill but higher failure tolerance.
Spoonbill + Skimmer SPECIALIST PAIR Skimmer feeds pins fast; Spoonbill stacks them with deliberate orientation control. Spoonbill's pin-flip capability lets it recover from imperfect handoffs that would defeat a non-rotating claw bot. Risk: same coordination demands as Pelican + Skimmer.
Pelican + Skimmer SPECIALIST PAIR Skimmer as pin feeder, Pelican as combo bot. Works when match strategy is "load pins fast, combo them with cups Pelican brings." Risk: requires tight driver coordination — one bot's pin queue depends on the other bot's cup acquisition.
Heron + Osprey UPSIDE PAIR Both combo-capable, both with polycarb-tube-friendly lifts. If both build Tube B variants, the alliance has two cinch-grip-secure cup handlers. Risk: same fabrication-convergence risk as Pelican + Heron, doubled.
Pelican + Kite ROBUST DEPLOYED Two deployed V1.0 four-bar + V5 claw builds, identical lift architecture. Pelican is the reference combo bot; Kite adds 16.5W wattage headroom via shared-shaft transmission, which the alliance can use for autonomous-period mechanisms or aux scoring. Risk: identical lift architecture means correlated failure modes — a lift-PID issue or claw-motor thermal-trip in one mechanism is likely to affect the other in parallel.
Spoonbill + Owl ORIENTATION CEILING Two deployed orientation-flexible bots, different orientation mechanisms. Spoonbill rotates the element after grip via the 5.5W claw-rotation gearbox; Owl reorients the manipulator before grip via the pneumatic pivot. Together this pairing covers orientation problems no other pairing solves (pin-flips on hex faces, cup-inversion, deliberate combo-ordering during transit, dual-source pickup mode switch). Risk: both teams running novel mechanisms means correlated bench-test learning curves through Phase A.
Owl + Skimmer SPECIALIST PAIR Skimmer feeds pins fast from the floor; Owl combos cups + pins with dual-source pickup mode. Owl’s vertical-mode lets it offload loader trips while Skimmer cycles floor pins continuously. Lower coordination burden than Spoonbill + Skimmer or Pelican + Skimmer because Owl’s pneumatic mode switch means Owl can pick up wherever the pin or cup ends up, rather than depending on Skimmer’s exact handoff cadence. Risk: Owl’s pneumatic-pivot reliability is unproven; if the pivot stalls, Owl reverts to a single-orientation manipulator and the pairing degrades.
Kite + Owl INNOVATION PAIR Two deployed “clever architecture” builds from the same V1.0 baseline, different innovations. Kite consolidates power across mechanisms (shared shaft drives arm and toggle at different sprocket ratios); Owl consolidates intake modes across pickup sources (one manipulator pivots between horizontal and vertical orientations). Architecturally diverse despite shared chassis lineage. Risk: both teams are running unconventional mechanisms in Phase A — doubled bench-testing risk, but also doubled engineering-notebook differentiation for the judging room.
Falcon + any FLEXIBLE 4-DOF arm lets Falcon adapt to whatever the partner can't cover. Best pairing depends on partner: Falcon + Skimmer makes Falcon the combo bot; Falcon + Pelican makes Falcon the flexible secondary. Risk: arm DOF is build-complex and unproven.
Skimmer + Skimmer WEAK Two specialists, no combo capability. Match strategy is pin-only, which gives up the combo scoring bonus. Avoid this pairing unless the opposing alliance is also pin-only.
Strategic implication for alliance selection. The strongest pairings always include at least one combo-capable bot. Buildable peak: Pelican + Spoonbill (both deployed, two active wrists effectively — one passive-orientation, one active-rotation). Mechanism-robust: Pelican + Osprey (deployed, different lifts and mechanisms). Orientation ceiling: Spoonbill + Owl (deployed, two different orientation mechanisms covering pin-flip, cup-invert, and dual-source pickup). Theoretical ceiling: Pelican + Heron (if Tube B builds). The matrix says don’t pair two specialists and watch for shared failure modes — Pelican + Spoonbill is buildable-best but shares four-bar architecture; pair it with a chain-bar or DR4B alternate for tournament insurance. Note also that Kite and Owl are both V1.0-derived, so a Kite + Owl pairing shares chassis lineage but diverges architecturally in interesting ways — useful for innovation showcase, less ideal for failure-mode independence.

Sensitivity — What Would Shift the Tiers?

Open Follow-Ups

Cross-References