Season
Power ratings
| Event | CCWM | OPR | DPR | Alliances | Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feilding VEX V5 Robotics Competition™ Tournament 2: | 3.2 | 26.5 | 23.3 | 10 | R² 0.615 · ±15.84 pts |
| Palmerston North VEX V5 Robotics Competition™ Tourna | 32.6 | 48.3 | 15.6 | 7 | R² 0.686 · ±16.23 pts |
| Whanganui VEX V5 Robotics Competition™ Tournament 4: | 29.7 | 48.5 | 18.8 | 10 | R² 0.574 · ±19.98 pts |
| New Plymouth VEX V5 Robotics Competition™ Tournament | 11.0 | 32.0 | 21.0 | 8 | R² 0.307 · ±16.73 pts |
OPR is what this team contributed to its own alliance's score, DPR what it allowed the opposing alliance, and CCWM the difference. All three are solved across every alliance at that event at once, so they do not depend on who the team was paired with — which win rate and average score both do.
Read them as rankings, not quantities. The fit column is honest about the precision: these explain roughly a third of score variance, and each team's figure rests on about five alliances. DPR can even come out slightly negative, which is the least-squares fit overshooting rather than a team causing negative points.
A team playing pure defense suppresses opponents instead of scoring, so it shows as low OPR and low DPR. That is why CCWM is the column to lead with — at the Mall of America event the undefeated winner ranked 6th on OPR and 1st on CCWM. This team's Elo sits in a smaller pool of events that share no teams with the main one, so it is not comparable to Elo elsewhere in the table.
Allies
| Team | Name | Together | Eliminations | Record | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85829A | Rovers | 6 | 4 | 6–0–0 | 100% |
| 35866B | Taranaki Tech Titans | 4 | 2 | 4–0–0 | 100% |
| 3204X | SPC Bots Xystus | 4 | 1 | 2–2–0 | 50% |
| 3204A | SPC Bots Alexander | 5 | — | 2–3–0 | 40% |
| 35866A | New Plymouth Nano Ninjas | 3 | — | 1–2–0 | 33% |
| 5606B | FAHS Robotics - Kākā | 3 | — | 1–2–0 | 33% |
| 44120B | Awatapu B | 2 | — | 1–1–0 | 50% |
| 2903V | Palmy Robotics | 1 | — | 1–0–0 | 100% |
| 2933Z | Jerry Jerry | 1 | — | 1–0–0 | 100% |
| 2985A | Octavia | 1 | — | 0–1–0 | 0% |
| 3204S | SPC Bots St Louis | 1 | — | 1–0–0 | 100% |
| 44120A | Awatapu A | 1 | — | 1–0–0 | 100% |
Top 12 of 15 distinct allies.
Sorted by elimination partnerships first, then by how often they played together. That order is the point: a qualification partner is a random draw, so playing with someone repeatedly says nothing about either team. An elimination partner was chosen in alliance selection — so even one says something, because it is either who picked them or who they picked.
The record is the pair's record in the matches they played together, which is the only record that describes the pairing rather than either team on its own.
Events
Matches
Robot analysis
Nothing here yet, and the reason is worth stating plainly rather than filling the space with numbers that do not mean what they appear to.
Tracking produces four anonymous tracks per match — robot 0 through robot 3 — and nothing in the video says which one is 35866N. Team plates measure about 17 pixels tall in this footage, so reading them is out of reach. Attribution has to come from the match schedule plus each robot's starting tile, which is not built.
Until it is, per-robot measurements — distance travelled, time in each zone, contact events, build-style clustering — live on the match pages, unattributed. They are deliberately not rolled up here, because a season average over tracks that may belong to the opposing alliance would be worse than no average at all.
Robot videos
No robot videos found in a YouTube search (last checked 2026-09-22).
Match footage
No footage linked to this team's matches yet. A match page takes a stream link and the time the match starts in it.