Stacking robots

[CyberEagle9416]

Does anyone have creative ideas on stacking robots?
I've seen fembots almost do it with another team.

[O'Sancheski]

If the term "stacking" that was in the title and you mean stacking robots to get a triple balance, try searching CD-Media with the tags "frc1501." Also there is the search function. Try searching terms like "Stacking" or "Robot stacking."

[CyberEagle9416]

this was to get more robots on the bridge

[Andrew Lawrence]

Like you said, 692 attempted it with 701. There have been plenty of stacks to get more bots on the bridge. Look at 1501 for more details on how they did it. They were like 701, but I couldn't see if they were as good shooters (I didn't watch their matches, so I can't say. Help here, anybody?).

If you're going to the CalGames offseason, or watching the webcast, you may be able to see a stack balance or two .

[MrTechCenter]

701 and 2865 did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qPtIfwSN6c


Although, I don't see the benefit because it was only those two on the bridge and they could have fit if they balanced normally.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

701 and 2865 did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qPtIfwSN6c


Although, I don't see the benefit because it was only those two on the bridge and they could have fit if they balanced normally.

Here's the other matches we stacked in...

Spokane QF Match 1 - Failed attempt at a triple balance... We clearly needed more practice with 294. Also I think having the CG of the stacked robot that high works against you when balancing. Luckily, 294 scored enough to win that match.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglFrbbN8Ss

Spokane QF Match 2 - Stacked but just a double... It seemed a better use of time to have 294 score some more balls.. unfortunately we lost by 2 points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnnBxDSLOtk

Spokane QF Match 3 - Stacked but just a double again. Enough for a win and advanced to the semis, where we focused on defense to stop fender shooters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb7eKLP50uo

Was it worth it to do the stacking approach? Kinda yes and no.. It didn't pay off enough to win elims like we had hoped, but it was definitely a cool thing to try and pull off. I believe it really helped us get the ID award at Spokane, which is a win in a different sort of way. I still wished we would have tried it on the Coop bridge. It would be a penalty on both alliances, but they'd offset each other. It would be a truly cooperative effort!

[DampRobot]

Is it legal to have a robot begin on top of another? I know in 2007, there was a loophole that allowed alliances to score by simply stacking two dead robots on top of each other. Obviously, to get a triple balance in this years game, the bottom robot would have to be active. Is this a legal way to go for the triple?

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Like you said, 692 attempted it with 701. There have been plenty of stacks to get more bots on the bridge. Look at 1501 for more details on how they did it. They were like 701, but I couldn't see if they were as good shooters (I didn't watch their matches, so I can't say. Help here, anybody?).

As of BMR, they were fender-based two-point shooters. I don't know exact shooting percentage; I do know they made more than they missed.
Their stacking triple balance is well documented.
I don't know if they've made updates or changes to make them reach the 3-goal or shoot from the key. With their six treaded wheels, they weren't easy to push around at the fender.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Is it legal to have a robot begin on top of another? I know in 2007, there was a loophole that allowed alliances to score by simply stacking two dead robots on top of each other. [...] Is this a legal way to go for the triple?

Unless you've got a way to legally touch both the key [G01] and the bridge [G30-1] with the supporting robot and touch the key with the supported robot [G01], no. (And that would most likely involve sticking your favorite appendage outside the frame perimeter, also a [G01] call.) Net foul count, 1 T-foul (9 points) and 2 disabled robots for the match.


2007 was a special case. The loophole was confirmed to be there by the GDC during build season, but as soon as the strategy was used, it was declared illegal. Actually, IIRC, both robots were E-stopped the second they could E-stop them, but started active.

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Is it legal to have a robot begin on top of another? I know in 2007, there was a loophole that allowed alliances to score by simply stacking two dead robots on top of each other. Obviously, to get a triple balance in this years game, the bottom robot would have to be active. Is this a legal way to go for the triple?

No.

We asked Aiden Brown at the North Carolina regional this specific question.

Although he couldn't seem to find an exact answer as to WHY it wouldn't be legal, (their robot would sit on our rear, and they would have an appendage touching the key to start with) he said it wouldn't be.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Is it legal to have a robot begin on top of another? I know in 2007, there was a loophole that allowed alliances to score by simply stacking two dead robots on top of each other. Obviously, to get a triple balance in this years game, the bottom robot would have to be active. Is this a legal way to go for the triple?

This may have been what Mr. Browne couldn't remember:

Originally Posted by Rebound Rumble Game Manual

[G30-1]
A Robot may only be supported (fully or partially) by another Robot if one of the Robots is in contact with a Bridge.
Violation: Technical Foul for extended, strategic, or repeated loss of contact.

Robots supporting other Robots will invite scrutiny regarding the safety inherent in the design, per Rule [G07]. It behooves a team employing such a strategy to take precautionary action to mitigate any risk of Robots falling outside the Court.

(blue text is blue box)

[nighterfighter]

Originally Posted by Taylor

This may have been what Mr. Browne couldn't remember:


(blue text is blue box)

I don't know, we asked him about starting the match that way.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

I don't know, we asked him about starting the match that way.

Right. He may have been unable to remember the exact rule that made the stacking strategy illegal, but he knew there was one. It was added in the Update on 1/20 (TU#4).

I know I had to look up the rule before replying--I knew there was a rule, and that it had been added to an existing rule, but I didn't know the number/wording.

[nighterfighter]

Perhaps. We both looked at the rules (The pregame section) while discussing the legalities of it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by nighterfighter

Perhaps. We both looked at the rules (The pregame section) while discussing the legalities of it.

Ah. The pregame section. Yes, that would be why he couldn't remember. [G30-1] is in Robot-Robot Interaction.