179 Swamp Teasers

[Swampdude]

Bringing balance to the Universe one bot (or 3) at a time...
Yes it shoots balls but you can't see that yet, and it blocks the chute nicely :D

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/429780_3242948477523_1381182557_4461720_1044643859 _n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419602_3242846434972_1381182557_4461667_2088578140 _n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/421150_3242855395196_1126681551_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/400491_3242851395096_1381182557_4461668_2049655823 _n.jpg

[Peyton Yeung]

Well done. I was hoping someone would make a good ramp bot but this just blows me away. Good luck

[Andrew Lawrence]

Why do I have the feeling this is going to win einstein if it can effectively feed balls to the two strong scorers on its alliance? Probably because it will. :cool:

[Squeakypig]

My mind...it has officially been blown...

*Goes on Travelocity to buy plane ticket to St. Louis*

Gotta see this thing in action!

[Ernst]

Are you sure that this does not violate
[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. (Robots may push or react against any
elements of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)
Violation: Foul

I would be inclined to say that your robot does not violate the rule, because you aren't clamping something onto the bridge, but are instead cleverly utilizing friction and balancing.


Also, can the pivoting-platform part catapult balls?:D

[Peyton Yeung]

This seems kinda like a 111 from 2001 hybrid utilizing a clever passive gripper to hang. Mind=blown

[Jetweb]

Are you sure that this does not violate


I would be inclined to say that your robot does not violate the rule, because you aren't clamping something onto the bridge, but are instead cleverly utilizing friction and balancing.


Also, can the pivoting-platform part catapult balls?:D

It is fully supported by the top surface of the ramp and doesn't touch any other part

Also it doesn't catapult but it will defiantly be able to shoot balls

[Jared Russell]

My only question is how many copycats will we see...

[Justin Montois]

Came in here expecting "Teasers", Things went much better than expected!

That thing is just awesome. 3 more weeks of refining and you guys will be a force, can't wait to talk about it when it makes the FRC Top 25!

[JB987]

Does the bottom of the u-channel that fits over the bridge end touch any part of the bottom side while the bot is suspending or suspended? Or is this just an amazing example of a perfect balancing feat?

[Peyton Yeung]

I'm curious as to what the 4 sprockets on the ramp do. Guess I'll have to wait a few more weeks.

[Tom Line]

Why do I have the feeling this is going to win einstein if it can effectively feed balls to the two strong scorers on its alliance? Probably because it will. :cool:

Take another look. That appears to be the ball handling mechanism on the bottom of their ramp (look at the vertical channels and teh white gears). I'm guessing they are, essentially, a close in dumper. They plan on playing in the offensive zone. Since you're not likely to have 2 bots on defense, their ramp system only makes sense in the offensive zone.

[JohnSchneider]

My only question is how many copycats will we see...

I agree...I wish you wouldnt have shown this so early :(

[BJC]

That's not a teaser, thats a robot!

Out of curiosity what angle is your ramp at? I imagine that an angle steeper then the actual ramp (15-16 degrees) may present a problem for some teams trying to climb you.

It really does look awesome though. 40 points anyone?

Good Luck with your bold strategy this season.
Regards, Bryan

[AdamHeard]

Is this legal?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Take another look. That appears to be the ball handling mechanism on the bottom of their ramp (look at the vertical channels and teh white gears). I'm guessing they are, essentially, a close in dumper. They plan on playing in the offensive zone. Since you're not likely to have 2 bots on defense, their ramp system only makes sense in the offensive zone.

Good find! Do you think they'll be shooting any higher than the second basket, though?

[Nolo]

Good find! Do you think they'll be shooting any higher than the second basket, though?

Does it matter? 10 points in hybrid + 40 points for balancing all 100% by one team. Great job guys! I'm amazed.

[Justin Montois]

Is this legal?

Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)
Violation: Foul

That's the only rule they might have a problem with.

[Swampdude]

Thanks for the compliments!
Good luck copying this, there are many, many particulars to make this system work properly. If they successfully do at this point in the season then hats off to them. This posting is meant to inspire creativity, so if that's what it does GREAT! There are a lot of features not shown here like the ball shooter/collector and nuances about the balancing gauge alert system as well :D

It lays flat on the ramp surface when balanced. However I understand a recent Q&A would allow it to touch underneath as long as it comes off easy.

[Aren_Hill]

Is this legal?

From the looks of it they aren't reacting off of any surface but the top of the bridge, hence no grabbing or attaching or grappling.

my hunch says legal, can't find anything against it

[JB987]

Is this legal?
It looks like it would be legal if indeed at no point in time while engaged with the edge of the bridge the top and bottom plates of the channel touch top and bottom at the same instant (which would be considered a "grasp"). If enough weight is placed on the bot's elevated and forward cantilevered ramp it is conceivable that the bottom might not touch the underside of the bridge. Love to see it close up...

[Donut]

That is a brilliant solution for how to get 3 robots on a bridge. I wouldn't be worried about copycats considering how many robot designs would have to be completely scrapped to attempt anything similar to this.

Good luck this season, this will be a fun robot to watch.

[Justin Montois]

Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.


I feel like they might be in trouble...

[techtiger1]

Dan looking good as usual ,very good execution of the idea, I almost expected to see a robot from you guys like that this year. Also, we will have no problem climbing up if needed hehe. Good job to the 179 crew as usual.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.


I feel like they might be in trouble...

IF it is illegal, maybe they'll let them compete because it's so awesome!

[Joe G.]

I don't see how this is illegal. The system does not grasp the bridge. It rests on top of it. The bulk of the robot just happens to be beneath the part doing the "resting."

Amazing job 179! I was hoping we'd see some creative ways to get the 40 point bonus.

[Basel A]

Another potentially problematic rule:

[R06]
Traction devices may not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments. Traction devices include all parts of the Robot that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the Robot and the Court.

It appears to me as if a metal contact on the bridge propels the robot upward? However, if this strategy is legal, then it is absolutely brilliant! Nice work!

[Justin Montois]

Another potentially problematic rule:

[R06]
Traction devices may not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments. Traction devices include all parts of the Robot that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the Robot and the Court.

It appears to me as if a metal contact on the bridge propels the robot upward? However, if this strategy is legal, then it is absolutely brilliant! Nice work!

Ut oh...

[AdamHeard]

From the looks of it they aren't reacting off of any surface but the top of the bridge, hence no grabbing or attaching or grappling.

my hunch says legal, can't find anything against it

I initially missed the single contact, I assumed they were reacting on bottom as well.

Can't see any problems here; great design. Truly epic.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Another potentially problematic rule:



It appears to me as if a metal contact on the bridge propels the robot upward? However, if this strategy is legal, then it is absolutely brilliant! Nice work!

Could be covered in traction material or something... that's an easy rule to work with.

What concerns me is how do the bumpers work? Unless that ramp is 33 degrees there is no way to put a bumper under it when deployed. (Minimum height for top of bumper is 5")

[Jared Russell]

Ut oh...

Fixable with a small piece of rubber/tread.

[coldfusion1279]

I'd like to say it's legal. Looks really cool, and if it is legal, opens the doors to many solutions for 3 robots on a ramp that many teams were too afraid to try.

But does a 'grappling hook' grapple?

[artdutra04]

Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.


I feel like they might be in trouble...To me, the photo of their robot says a thousand words, and the third photo from the top shows me exactly why they are legal: the CG of their robot is entirely underneath the flat portion of their hanging mechanism. This means that when the robot is elevated off of the ground, 100% of their weight is supported on the flat portion on the top of the bridge (with no other horizontal or vertical forces exerted in a means that pinches the bridge). The rest of their robot is simply overhanging off the side of the bridge.

This condition is no different than if a traditional 6WD robot drive halfway off the bridge, with a sizable chuck of their robot hanging in free air. For the robot to not fall off, the CG must be over the portion supported by the bridge. And while there may be extra robot volume there hanging beyond (or below) the top plane of the bridge, the robot is still entirely supported only by reacting to the top surface of the bridge.

[Borobo]

how do bumpers fit onto this with the ramp down?

[AlecMataloni]

Legal or not, I'm worried about the angle of that ramp. I'm hoping teams will be able to climb it without getting stuck.

[David Guzman]

Looks absolutely awesome!

I can't wait to see this robot in a action and hopefully use the ramp :D

By the way, I was also wondering about the bumpers, how is that going to work?

As for the angle, my guess is that most (if not all) robots that can climb the bump can climb this ramp.

[MichaelBick]

Have you experimented with other robots. Obviously that robot is amazingly light, but I wonder if that amount of weight is enough to unbalance the bridge, because it is all on one side.

[dez250]

Traction devices may not have surface features such as metal, sandpaper, hard plastic studs, cleats, or other attachments. Traction devices include all parts of the Robot that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the Robot and the Court.



The Court for Rebound Rumble is a 27 by 54 ft carpeted area, bounded by two Alliance Walls and a guardrail system. The Court is covered with carpet (Shaw Floors, Philadelphia Commercial, Neyland II, 20, 30753, “park bench”). Hoops are located at the ends of the Court attached to the Alliance Walls. Three Bridges are located in the center of the Court. Areas of red and blue tape on the surface of the Court denote Alleys; solid red and blue semicircular areas are Keys.



Robots traverse the center of the Court by crossing over either one of three Bridges or the 4 in. tall by 6 in. wide, smooth steel Barriers running between them. Each Alliance has one dedicated Bridge for their use at end of their Alley. An additional white Coopertition Bridge is located at the center of the Court. Each Bridge is 48 in. wide, 88 in. long (outside dimensions), and sits with the top platform 12 in. high off the ground when level. Each Bridge is mounted on a double-hinge that allows the Bridge to tip towards either end of Court. The top surface of each bridge includes an array of 15 small holes, details of which are included in the official field drawings.

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.


As I read the definition laid out by the FRC GDC, the Court is defined as an area of 27 feet by 54 feet bounded by the alliance walls and side guardrails, which is covered by carpet. Placed in the center of the Court are three Bridges, which are not defined as part of the court, but as objects placed on top of the Court. Thus I do not see [R06] being a problem with interaction between a robot and bridge, because it clearly states "... forces between the Robot and the Court".

YMMV.

[Jibsy]

This is amazing! Kudos!
Judging by the design of this, the rules have been read and pondered over many times. I think it will be fine, though it will cause refs to take a close look.

[Swampdude]

Looks absolutely awesome!

I can't wait to see this robot in a action and hopefully use the ramp :D

By the way, I was also wondering about the bumpers, how is that going to work?

As for the angle, my guess is that most (if not all) robots that can climb the bump can climb this ramp.

Thanks Dave, yah the bumpers fit in there. They're only on the ends 8" long on the rear, plus some other goodies in between. As I said, there are many unseen particulars. Like you said I figure if you can climb the bridge and the bump you should be able to get up this, it's 22 deg, but if one gets stuck we can give them a lift. This can be used after other bots are already balanced to come in as a 3rd bot or a 2nd on the coopertition bridge where they don't have to climb it.

As far as bridge weight distribution, there's a good indication system in the works as to where the weight is on the bridge everyone should be able to see.

[Lil' Lavery]

Robots like this are a big part of the reason I still love FRC. When a team takes one of the concepts we threw out for not being realistic and not only successfully completes it but does so in a beautifully executed fashion. Excellent design work from 179.

[MagiChau]

Inspirational robot to get me motivated even more during the final three weeks of build season. I expect this robot will be able to come to championships in competition so I can be in awe of it in person.

[DampRobot]

I find it a little sad to see such an established team go for something like this. This is obviously a superiorly designed, engineered and machined robot, just look at that sheet metal on the ramp.

That said, I just can't comprehend why a team with this much potential chose to just do the bridge. Being able to gain only 10 points in qualification and no more just doesn't make sense to me, even with playing defense.

I did expect more than a few rookie teams to just concentrate on balancing. But a team of this caliber? I really feel like their engineering expertise would have been better put to use designing even a dumper. A good dumper could virtually guarantee getting 6-12 points per match, plus ten for balancing. That's not including autonomous.

With this design, it is true that 10 points per match can be expected, and that the robot would a boon in eliminations. But why would a robot that can't even play feeder be selected for elims?

179, awesome robot, but I just don't understand why you decided to give up on every aspect of the game but balancing.

[Jared Russell]

179, awesome robot, but I just don't understand why you decided to give up on every aspect of the game but balancing.

They didn't...

[Andrew Lawrence]

I find it a little sad to see such an established team go for something like this. This is obviously a superiorly designed, engineered and machined robot, just look at that sheet metal on the ramp.

That said, I just can't comprehend why a team with this much potential chose to just do the bridge. Being able to gain only 10 points in qualification and no more just doesn't make sense to me, even with playing defense.

I did expect more than a few rookie teams to just concentrate on balancing. But a team of this caliber? I really feel like their engineering expertise would have been better put to use designing even a dumper. A good dumper could virtually guarantee getting 6-12 points per match, plus ten for balancing. That's not including autonomous.

With this design, it is true that 10 points per match can be expected, and that the robot would a boon in eliminations. But why would a robot that can't even play feeder be selected for elims?

179, awesome robot, but I just don't understand why you decided to give up on every aspect of the game but balancing.

They can score as well.

What about 111 in 2001 (I think that was the year)? Top caliber team was a bridge ramp robot, and oh yeah, they won championships!

[Jetweb]

I find it a little sad to see such an established team go for something like this. This is obviously a superiorly designed, engineered and machined robot, just look at that sheet metal on the ramp.

That said, I just can't comprehend why a team with this much potential chose to just do the bridge. Being able to gain only 10 points in qualification and no more just doesn't make sense to me, even with playing defense.

I did expect more than a few rookie teams to just concentrate on balancing. But a team of this caliber? I really feel like their engineering expertise would have been better put to use designing even a dumper. A good dumper could virtually guarantee getting 6-12 points per match, plus ten for balancing. That's not including autonomous.

With this design, it is true that 10 points per match can be expected, and that the robot would a boon in eliminations. But why would a robot that can't even play feeder be selected for elims?

179, awesome robot, but I just don't understand why you decided to give up on every aspect of the game but balancing.

Dont worry, when you see the completed robot you will not be disappointed. it can do way more than balance the bridge (not everything is in the pictures)

[Nuttyman54]

They can score as well.

What about 111 in 2001 (I think that was the year)? Top caliber team was a bridge ramp robot, and oh yeah, they won championships!

Wildstang was a championship finalist in 2001, they've won in 2003, 2009 and 2011. The 2001 champions were 71, 365, 294, 279 and 125

It's still one of my all-time favorite robots though

[Akash Rastogi]

With 179 being Swamp Thing, I find this very fitting in response to DampRobot

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/haters-gonna-hate7.jpg

[rocknthehawk]

179, awesome robot, but I just don't understand why you decided to give up on every aspect of the game but balancing.

I think you may have skimmed the pictures and posted with out reading the thread.

Absolutely in love with the design.

[JB987]

What happens when one partner crosses to the farthest endpoint of the bridge and your second partner is possibly just making contact with the bottom of your ramp? What is to keep the bridge from rotating such that the top and bottom of your channel are now in contact with top and bottom of the bridge (ie. grasping)?

[Lil' Lavery]

They can score as well.

What about 111 in 2001 (I think that was the year)? Top caliber team was a bridge ramp robot, and oh yeah, they won championships!

As unfounded as the post you're referring to is, I do feel like the story should be set straight here about 111. First off, Wildstang didn't win championship in 2001. They won in 2003, 2009, and 2011. The alliance of 71, 294, 125, 365, and 279 won in 2001.

But the 2001 game is entirely different from 2012. The game was played 4v0 with several very distinct "tasks" that took place in the game. That led to many teams "specializing" in one task or another (balancing the bridge, moving goals, capping goals, traversing under the bar, etc). Wildstang was a bridge specialist, but that game called for bridge specialists.

And for what it's worth, Wildstang could also cross the bridge quickly and efficiently and could "tip" the bridge back and forth from the ground without deploying their ramp. They were useful for more than just their ramp.

[XaulZan11]

That said, I just can't comprehend why a team with this much potential chose to just do the bridge. Being able to gain only 10 points in qualification and no more just doesn't make sense to me, even with playing defense.


148 did pretty well in 2008 building just a box on wheels (although a very very special box on wheels) and 469 did pretty well in 2010 with a strategy that wasn't good for seeding well.

Great job 179 for building a different robot and sharing it so early in the season. I just hope we don't see any copy cats.

[Jared Russell]

What happens when one partner crosses to the farthest endpoint of the bridge and your second partner is possibly just making contact with the bottom of your ramp? What is to keep the bridge from rotating such that the top and bottom of your channel are now in contact with top and bottom of the bridge (ie. grasping)?

It looks like the top and bottom of the channel are sufficiently spaced such that there is no way the bridge can contact both simultaneously within the possible bridge rotation.

[Nuttyman54]

But the 2001 game is entirely different from 2012. The game was played 4v0 with several very distinct "tasks" that took place in the game. That led to many teams "specializing" in one task or another (balancing the bridge, moving goals, capping goals, traversing under the bar, etc). Wildstang was a bridge specialist, but that game called for bridge specialists.

And for what it's worth, Wildstang could also cross the bridge quickly and efficiently and could "tip" the bridge back and forth from the ground without deploying their ramp. They were useful for more than just their ramp.

To tag along on this, I believe this was the era before the rules stated that ALL attachments had to cumulatively be under the weight limit. The rules back then stated that any given starting configuration had to be under the weight limit, but the sum total of all the different attachments could be greater than the weight limit. Wildstang often removed their ramp ability to use an attachment which allowed them to control the mobile goals well. You can see them do this in the 710 point match at Midwest (video is on their website).

That being said, the Swampthing robot is also much more than just a ramp. they've cleverly designed a system that can balance on the bridge while taking up almost no space, and significantly reduces the time their partners need to balance. I think it will be a very impressive robot to see in action. Not to mention they can score balls, and will have VERY good drivers by the time competitions roll around. Kudos to you guys for taking the path less traveled, I will be following this robot very closely!

[DampRobot]

Sorry if I've offended anyone on 179. As I said, that robot is a really cool piece of engineering.

Looking at the pics, I see how a feeder could be integrated into the ramp, possibly using those sprockets in the bottom of the ramp. A feeder/balancer bot makes a lot more sense than a purely balancer. That is what could make this a great robot. Assuming 179 pulls this off (and I have no doubt they can, with this much time left in the season), they would be an extremely competitive robot. I bet many teams would pick them first, even over a great shooter.

Having a feeder and a ramp is what would make 179 truly competitive. I still believe that having just a ramp would not make a lot of sense.

[Grim Tuesday]

Sorry if I've offended anyone on 179. As I said, that robot is a really cool piece of engineering.

Looking at the pics, I see how a feeder could be integrated into the ramp, possibly using those sprockets in the bottom of the ramp. A feeder/balancer bot makes a lot more sense than a purely balancer. That is what could make this a great robot. Assuming 179 pulls this off (and I have no doubt they can, with this much time left in the season), they would be an extremely competitive robot. I bet many teams would pick them first, even over a great shooter.

Having a feeder and a ramp is what would make 179 truly competitive. I still believe that having just a ramp would not make a lot of sense.

What they have is far more than a ramp. They have a guaranteed 20 points per match in qualifications, and a very likely 40 in eliminations. They probably won't seed first, but whichever team picks them will win the regional.

Only at the very high levels do you see robots that can guarantee 20 to 40 points per match. This robot is utterly fantastic, and the engineering and thought that went into it looks amazing. I wish I had thought of it, but hats off to 179!

[Andrew Schreiber]

What they have is far more than a ramp. They have a guaranteed 20 points per match in qualifications, and a very likely 40 in eliminations. They probably won't seed first, but whichever team picks them will win the regional.

Only at the very high levels do you see robots that can guarantee 20 to 40 points per match. This robot is utterly fantastic, and the engineering and thought that went into it looks amazing. I wish I had thought of it, but hats off to 179!

You'd be surprised, history has shown that the average team is pretty bad at scoring. 20 points may be a decent amount to swing many matches. For example, a hang (2 pts) in 2010 would swing 29% of matches. A suspension and a hang would have changed 72%. (source: http://ewcp.org/blog/2011/12/06/2010-scoring-analysis/)

[Grim Tuesday]

You'd be surprised, history has shown that the average team is pretty bad at scoring. 20 points may be a decent amount to swing many matches. For example, a hang (2 pts) in 2010 would swing 29% of matches. A suspension and a hang would have changed 72%. (source: http://ewcp.org/blog/2011/12/06/2010-scoring-analysis/)

My point exactly:

"Only at the very high levels do you see robots that can guarantee 20 to 40 points per match. This robot is utterly fantastic, and the engineering and thought that went into it looks amazing. I wish I had thought of it, but hats off to 179!"

Given the amount that 20 points is this year, I think these guys pretty much have a lock on the regional level, and can really only be competed with by the very high powerhouse level teams in scoring.

[Cory]

What they have is far more than a ramp. They have a guaranteed 20 points per match in qualifications, and a very likely 40 in eliminations. They probably won't seed first, but whichever team picks them will win the regional.

Only at the very high levels do you see robots that can guarantee 20 to 40 points per match. This robot is utterly fantastic, and the engineering and thought that went into it looks amazing. I wish I had thought of it, but hats off to 179!

Nothing is guaranteed. The average regional match would probably feature teams that have trouble climbing the ramp.

Not to take anything away from 179, but everyone on Chief always freaks out and starts exclaiming "EINSTEIN!!!!" as soon as they see the first out of the box/good robot posted. It's never that simple.

[rcmolloy]

Bunch of us here were impressed with what you guys are offering this year. However, I do agree with what Cory said about the "EINSTEIN" comments. Remember, 469 did have a great plan in 2010 with their ball redirector AS WELL AS a very functional kicker and roller. Right now, 179 is in the best place to be successful.

Congrats guys, we will definitely be seeing you at Champs.

[=Martin=Taylor=]

How does that ramp fit inside the 14" extension rule?



Of course they didn't overlook such an obvious rule.... but that means a very steep ramp, which some robots won't be able to climb (But most will, considering they will be designed for crossing the bump).

Very ingenious design. I bet others will be doing something similar :rolleyes:

[Nuttyman54]

Will you be able to legally use the ramp to aid in the coopertition bonus?

[G27] Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent Robot on or inside its Frame Perimeter is not allowed.

Even though the robot is designed to be climbed, I don't think there's a way around the "deliberate" wording there. Unless there's a rule change, it seems to me that you would only be able to ramp up allied robots.

Still very useful for your alliance bridge, but maybe not as helpful as I'd originally hoped for getting the coopertition bonus in qualifications.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Not to take anything away from 179, but everyone on Chief always freaks out and starts exclaiming "EINSTEIN!!!!" as soon as they see the first out of the box/good robot posted. It's never that simple.
It's still really cool though.

[Chris is me]

This design shattered my brain not only because I didn't think of it, but because when I saw the idea for the first time I thought "naah, getting the bridge balanced with one robot hanging off the side would take such a massive effort..."

Congratulations on pulling that off.

That said - I feel compelled to be preachy (as I do with pretty much every post I make on Chief Delphi...) to those reading from a "low resource team". Do not feel like this is a design one should copy at week 4 of the build season, especially if your robot's "ultimate goal" is to win the World Championship. Among many other reasons, the point values of the ramp balance could be adjusted for the Championship.

As someone who's basically spent his time "mentoring" 2791 observing things and spitting out ideas - taking "continuous improvement" past its logical conclusion with regards to design of a robot is easy to do.

[Tristan Lall]

Will you be able to legally use the ramp to aid in the coopertition bonus?

[G27] Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent Robot on or inside its Frame Perimeter is not allowed.

Even though the robot is designed to be climbed, I don't think there's a way around the "deliberate" wording there. Unless there's a rule change, it seems to me that you would only be able to ramp up allied robots.

Still very useful for your alliance bridge, but maybe not as helpful as I'd originally hoped for getting the coopertition bonus in qualifications.
If you're the robot presented with the opportunity to climb 179, and the choice is between winning with no bonus (2 QP for you/0 QP for opponent), and losing (because of the +9 penalty) with a bonus for two co-operatively balanced robots (2 QP for you/4 QP for opponent), shouldn't you still consider doing the latter, if it skews the rankings in your favour (e.g. by stacking the draft order such that certain alliances are broken up)? Isn't it only really a bad idea if your rank relative to your opponent is an issue, or you determine that you can't risk a card (now or the next time you try it)?

(I'm glossing over several other cases that might be worth considering.)

[Tom Ore]

This hanging method is one of the concepts we seriously considered. In the end we decided not to do it because we didn't think we could make a robot light enough. We reasoned that if we had a 150 lb robot with a CG 1" or so from the edge of the bridge and our partner was 150 lb with a CG 12" from the edge we may not be able to balance. It would require a very light robot because the 2 on top don't have much room to move outward. I'm glad to see someone worked out all the details to make this work. Good job!

[Squeakypig]

Just so we don't get more questions and comments about "this being a bridge balancing only robot" I think your team should just go ahead an reveal your entire robot....

Please? Pretty please?

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't know if its just me, but the pictures aren't showing up any more.

[jvriezen]

How does that ramp fit inside the 14" extension rule?



Of course they didn't overlook such an obvious rule.... but that means a very steep ramp, which some robots won't be able to climb (But most will, considering they will be designed for crossing the bump).

Very ingenious design. I bet others will be doing something similar :rolleyes:

Assuming those are 8" wheels, just taking some measurements off the pic seems to show >14" from the frame, especially when the ramp is in a horizontal position.

[RufflesRidge]

Assuming those are 8" wheels, just taking some measurements off the pic seems to show >14" from the frame, especially when the ramp is in a horizontal position.

Those are this year's kit wheels which are 6".

[jvriezen]

Those are this year's kit wheels which are 6".

Ok, then the pic is too close to call, so I'll assume you are good to go.... Great job.

[MrForbes]

I wonder if the plastic piece under the bridge affects how the robot works? I don't recall seeing anything in the rules that "protects" it, so it shouldn't be a rule issue (yet)

[DampRobot]

Among many other reasons, the point values of the ramp balance could be adjusted for the Championship.


Interesting, I had forgotten all about the potential change in bridge points for champs.

[nahstobor]

Great work 179, your team always finds a unique way to play the game every year. No matter what happens at the regional or championship level, your team should take pride in setting a very difficult goal, and achieving it with flying colors. This is engineering.

[pyroslev]

I sir and madams tip my hat to you if I had one on at the moment. Simple and elegant design. If it works as well in competition as it does there, then I look forward to seeing you guys go far.

[jason701802]

That's a very interesting design. How much do you expect the final product to weigh (including battery and bumpers)?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Will you be able to legally use the ramp to aid in the coopertition bonus?

[G27] Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent Robot on or inside its Frame Perimeter is not allowed.

Even though the robot is designed to be climbed, I don't think there's a way around the "deliberate" wording there. Unless there's a rule change, it seems to me that you would only be able to ramp up allied robots.

Still very useful for your alliance bridge, but maybe not as helpful as I'd originally hoped for getting the coopertition bonus in qualifications.
We're working on a somewhat similar design, so I pinged the Q&A with a question about that. The answer was that G27 is in force no matter what, even if you want another robot on you for coopertition purposes.

Also, hats off to 179 for that impressively bold and integrated design. We're planning on a parking platform on our robot and using the bridge as a ramp onto our bot. Our main argument in favor of it was that it'd be valuable in the elims, and it only cost us weight for a parking surface and slightly beefier wedge. We weren't nearly confident enough in the value to build our entire bot around it.

[Brandon Holley]

This is totally a Swamp robot. It simply just fits you guys so well.

Kudos on a great design. I still wouldn't have posted it this early on...

-Brando

[AlexH]

Wow I wish I thought of that...

But I have to ask... Is the ramp on the robot in violation of the "no wedges rule"?

[Jonathan Ryan]

Please repost pictures! Sounds great, but would love to see what everybody is raving about.

[Andrew Zeller]

Wow I wish I thought of that...

But I have to ask... Is the ramp on the robot in violation of the "no wedges rule"?

What do you mean by the "no wedges rule" ?

[RogerR]

Dan,

Hats off to you and the rest of 179. We have a plywood version of this robot (minus the clever CG management hangin trick) sitting in the closet that we abandoned due to ground clearence worries. I'm looking forward to seeing this compete. Robots like this make me miss the UCF regional.

To prototype the concept, did you just park the 2003 machine in front of the bridge and run robots into it? ;)

[EricS-Team180]

This is the kind of innovation I have come to expect from our friends in West Palm Beach. Inspiring as usual Dan...kudos

Eric

[jblay]

I love seeing cool out of the box ideas. I'm very interested to see what kind of effect you guys have in qualification matches and how much you jump on people's list because of the 3 robot balance for eliminations. Say you are a middle of the range scorer, how much higher do you go on someones list because of the 3 robot balance ability considering you haven't been able to demonstrate it in the qualification matches? Maybe you guys will try and demonstrate this ability during the practice matches?

I just have 2 concerns about the design that I'm sure you guys have considered but I do feel like I should bring up.
-Is the ramp 14 inches out when it sits on the ground or when it is at it's full extension? We have made a similar mistake in the past and it forced us to do a very big redesign.
-Is the part where your C shaped channel encounters the bridge the same on the practice bridge as on the bridge on the actual competition field? My worry is more about the bottom of the bridge than the top. A subtle difference could change everything.

[Basel A]

Could be covered in traction material or something... that's an easy rule to work with.

Definitely. As pointed out, it doesn't apply to the parts touching the Bridge, but they will want to put a rubber coating (or something) on the parts that touch the carpet when the ramp is down. This is because the ramp, touching the carpet, will provide a repulsive force (friction) when robots attempt to climb the ramp.

[Gary Dillard]

I love the vice grips visible in the side view - will those make it to the final design? ;)

[stundt1]

The problem I see as soon as a robot goes on the other side the 179 robot will go off balance and maybe tip.

[dellagd]

just have 2 concerns about the design that I'm sure you guys have considered but I do feel like I should bring up.
-Is the ramp 14 inches out when it sits on the ground or when it is at it's full extension? We have made a similar mistake in the past and it forced us to do a very big redesign.
-Is the part where your C shaped channel encounters the bridge the same on the practice bridge as on the bridge on the actual competition field? My worry is more about the bottom of the bridge than the top. A subtle difference could change everything.


Take a look-see:

The Bridges video of the FIRST Youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-AMaqqmoLgQ#t=52s)

[LeelandS]

A very interesting design. I'm a little skeptical, but that's just because I can't see a method of ball manipulation (YET).

Now what happens if no one is on the other side of the bridge?

Otherwise, a very unique design that I don't expect to be replicated very much during the season. Though I do expect another innovative team to come up with this somewhere ;)

Also, when the ramp comes up during lifting, does it act as a wall your alliance partners can lean on to make sure they're well aligned? If not, AND I ASSUME IT IS NOT, you may want to make sure you clarify that, since it looks like if someone pushes on that too much, your robot will fall a bit and unbalance the bridge.

Kudos for the robot! Can't wait to see it in action!

-Leeland

[dellagd]

What do you mean by the "no wedges rule" ?

Well I believe he is referring to this:
[G26] Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of Robots are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Technical-Foul plus Yellow Card

For example, use of wedge-like mechanisms to flip Robots would be considered a violation.

But this is obviously not the case :rolleyes:





Oh, and this is wayyy of topic but did anyone else know that there was a dead horse emoticon on chief delphi? :deadhorse:

It is a bit graphic

How'd that get there :P

[dodar]

How does this react with the ball-stopper that is connected to the edges of the birdge? I believe there is a piece of lexan or polycarbonate beneath the bridge on both ends that connects back to the bottom of the bump. Yes, on the wooden practice bridge built to practice field specs only touches on top but if you p[ut that ball-stopper underneath it looks to be able to touch that piece and would therefore be "grasping" the bridge.

[waialua359]

Dan,
this is yet again, another great example of a well-engineered robot at this point.
Despite the questions/concerns from everyone, it was smart of you to post it, to help shed light in other areas, concerning your robot, so that you folks can modify/revise as necessary.

-Glenn

[BrendanB]

How does this react with the ball-stopper that is connected to the edges of the birdge? I believe there is a piece of lexan or polycarbonate beneath the bridge on both ends that connects back to the bottom of the bump. Yes, on the wooden practice bridge built to practice field specs only touches on top but if you p[ut that ball-stopper underneath it looks to be able to touch that piece and would therefore be "grasping" the bridge.

That might be a huge issue! When the bridge is balanced, those lexan slants are designed to be at an angle so balls can roll out. It hard to tell based on these pictures but they may be touching those when they are balancing!

Great design, I hope it works out for you in the end!

[Tom Ore]

That might be a huge issue! When the bridge is balanced, those lexan slants are designed to be at an angle so balls can roll out. It hard to tell based on these pictures but they may be touching those when they are balancing!

Great design, I hope it works out for you in the end!

I believe there was a Q&A on that - the lexan slants appear to be considered part of the bridge.

[dodar]

I believe there was a Q&A on that - the lexan slants appear to be considered part of the bridge.

Exactly. Thats not the part in question. The question is if they will be touching that as well when they are touching the top of the bridge; and if they are, then they are no longer just "touching" the bridge, they are "grasping" it and therefore would be illegal.

[dellagd]

Why cant you guys just put up the technique on the q&a regarding the legality?

I sorry, but Im confused.

[JohnSchneider]

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....


Also If our robot were to drive on their ramp(opposing alliances), who gets the penalty? The rationale for us getting is would give them the penalty under the wedge rule...

[Nuttyman54]

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....


Also If our robot were to drive on their ramp(opposing alliances), who gets the penalty? The rationale for us getting is would give them the penalty under the wedge rule...

The team climbing them would get the penalty. "The wedge rule", [G26] only penalizes strategies aimed at destruction and tipping other robots. The example giving is flipping another robot. It's hard to argue that 179's ramp is designed or being used strategically to intentionally flip another robot, when they're sitting stationary. The key here is the rule does not prohibit wedges, like has sometimes been the case in previous years. The rule only penalizes strategic decisions which result in the tipping of another robot. I feel that any reasonably astute observer would not identify 179 as attempting to tip another robot as their strategy. It's quite clearly the opposite.

[G27], as I mentioned earlier in the thread, assesses a penalty to any robot which deliberately contacts an opponent on or inside the frame perimeter. Since driving up and over 179 is clearly deliberate and definitely inside the frame perimeter, it seems that the penalty would be given to their opponent attempting to climb their ramp.

This is all of course my own opinion on how the rules should be interpreted in this scenario. Refs may call it differently.

[dellagd]

Because Q&A cant answer questions about design....

Sorry, this is my rookie year. Thats interesting though, I guess you just have to chance it with the refs? To me, that just seems a little weird.

[JohnSchneider]

Thats actually a fairly new problem this year that has a lot of people upset.

[militaryrobot]

You have blown my mind completley:ahh:

[RufflesRidge]

Exactly. Thats not the part in question. The question is if they will be touching that as well when they are touching the top of the bridge; and if they are, then they are no longer just "touching" the bridge, they are "grasping" it and therefore would be illegal.

I disagree that touching (and pushing down on) the top surface of two different parts of the bridge is grasping. If you put one hand on each of two shelves of bookcase and push down, are you grasping that bookcase?

grasp
1. To take hold of or seize firmly with or as if with the hand.
2. To clasp firmly with or as if with the hand.

[dellagd]

Per FIRST Q & A, Emphasis mine...

Q. Per this rule, would a device that utilizes a passive "appendage" deployed over the center line barrier (bump) to prevent your machine from being moved or twisted when hit (by applying forces to opposing sides of the barrier be considered a violation of this rule? Please elaborate on rule intent.

A. The intent of Rule [G10] is stated in its opening sentence, "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure." While, we cannot comment on the legality of a specific design, holding on to a field element is considered grappling and a violation of Rule [G10].

Q. Is it permissable for a robot on the bridge to extend a device that can also react off the bottom surface of the bridge provided that device does not grasp the bridge firmly?

A. Rule [G10] does not put a qualifier on how a Robot may legally grasp the Bridge. It simply says it cannot do it.

I feel like they might be in trouble...



Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>

b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>

c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>


Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.


What do you guys think on this ruleing?

[JohnSchneider]

What do you guys think on this ruleing?

Depends on if they're on my alliance or not ;)

[BrendanB]

The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.

[MagiChau]

Here is the Merrian-Webster Definition of holding:

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them>

b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up>

c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>


Ok. I really do like the idea, but it does seem like by the definition they are holding on the field element, and therefore violating that Q&A response.


What do you guys think on this ruleing?

The usage of that definition like that would then contradict the bridge supporting any robot. The bridge keeps the robots from touching the ground.

[Nemo]

This design is amazing. I can only imagine all of the details that need to be attended to for this to work as a ramp, as a robot that balances on the end, and as a gathering + shooting robot. So many constraints to satisfy on one robot! It makes me happy to see a really cool design like this.

[dellagd]

The usage of that definition like that would then contradict the bridge supporting any robot. The bridge keeps the robots from touching the ground.

Eh. I agree. But then again it does say in a particular position. Im guessing that position isnt standing on it, so... Anyway, I hope it all works out for them!

[Tetraman]

I can't believe how many people are surprised at a robot like this - I expected it.

Its just like 148's Tumbleweed in 2008 where its going to show its true colors in the elimination matches and be the pick of a lifetime for any alliance who can hold their own with their first two robots. Not only that, but a robot that can pretty much guarantee that an opposing alliance robot can get on the ramp with them will probably earn them the top seed anyway.

Great design. I just hope that this will be the new start of a wave of simple robot designs for all teams in the years to come.

[BJT]

if you couldn't see this thing and someone explained that only a 6"x20something" piece of it was in contact with only the top of the bridge, would you think it was legal?

[ratdude747]

Oh, and this is wayyy of topic but did anyone else know that there was a dead horse emoticon on chief delphi? :deadhorse:

It is a bit graphic

How'd that get there :P

I suggested it. It was posted orignally into the 2012 hint #1 thread of doom that had turned into a deadhorse.

It was a direct port from badcaps.net forums where I am a super-mod... the forum needed a dead horse smiley.

I wouldn't consider it overly graphic... yeah, there is a whip and there is some red flecks but honestly?

[sometimestommy]

Wow. :ahh: The design is so simple yet elegant! and the purpose makes a lot of sense.

I can't wait to see this thing in action!

[DavisC]

Great job! My team is working on a different/similar design because we were doing a holding mechanism that was similar but powered by motors and had no ramp so we have a higher notch shooter.

I also did some pixel calculations using paint and this is my find (roughly):
wheels = 104 pixels sooo,
1 inch = 17.33 pixels
14 inches= 242.67 pixels
Past the frame perimeter:
extends = 237 pixels sooo,
final extends = ~~13.67 inches, seems good to me.

also in the picture with the ramp set up, was that 22 degrees. I calculated about 27 degrees (probably just a calculation error, unless the picture was before a mod that allowed it to be only 22 degrees).

[Akash Rastogi]

Great design. I just hope that this will be the new start of a wave of simple robot designs for all teams in the years to come.

The best specialized robots in the past few years have been anything but simple though.

I'm thinking like 469 (2010), this robot, 71 (2002), 148 (2008).

I think teams forget that in order to be successful with one of these specialized designs, you have to have major good engineering, tweaking, and testing going on.

[dellagd]

Great job! My team is working on a different/similar design because we were doing a holding mechanism that was similar but powered by motors and had no ramp so we have a higher notch shooter.

I also did some pixel calculations using paint and this is my find (roughly):
wheels = 104 pixels sooo,
1 inch = 17.33 pixels
14 inches= 242.67 pixels
Past the frame perimeter:
extends = 237 pixels sooo,
final extends = ~~13.67 inches, seems good to me.

also in the picture with the ramp set up, was that 22 degrees. I calculated about 27 degrees (probably just a calculation error, unless the picture was before a mod that allowed it to be only 22 degrees).

Phewf! Thats mighty close to be extracted from a picture. But someting tells me that they would have thought of that when they built it :P

[CrashTestPilot]

First of all I want to congratulate on such a great design and execution . When I posted the link in our team's forum I added caption to the effect 'this is what I would call a power play (a play that executed correctly will almost guarantee whining a match)'


I am wondering how this ramp design will change the value of wide vs. narrow chassis in alliance selections. Many teams chose wide chassis because it may aid in a) balancing 3 bots, and b) with size of ball intake. This design takes away the value of the wide bots for balancing. As a matter of fact , wide bots would have harder time aligning with and climbing your ramp.

Good luck. I hope the rules are interpreted in your favor .

[Andrew Lawrence]

First of all I want to congratulate on such a great design and execution . When I posted the link in our team's forum I added caption to the effect 'this is what I would call a power play (a play that executed correctly will almost guarantee whining a match)'


I am wondering how this ramp design will change the value of wide vs. narrow chassis in alliance selections. Many teams chose wide chassis because it may aid in a) balancing 3 bots, and b) with size of ball intake. This design takes away the value of the wide bots for balancing. As a matter of fact , wide bots would have harder time aligning with and climbing your ramp.

Good luck. I hope the rules are interpreted in your favor .

The only thing whining in this match would be the team going against these guys! New thought: Can they cross over the barrier at all? It seems like they can't get to the other side like that!

[AlecMataloni]

The only thing whining in this match would be the team going against these guys! New thought: Can they cross over the barrier at all? It seems like they can't get to the other side like that!

I don't see a reason why they would need to if they are just balancing their alliance bridge. Maybe if they are trying to do the coopertition bridge, then they would need to go over the center line, but I think they might be able to drive over the bridge by articulating their ramp if they have to.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I don't see a reason why they would need to if they are just balancing their alliance bridge. Maybe if they are trying to do the coopertition bridge, then they would need to go over the center line, but I think they might be able to drive over the bridge by articulating their ramp if they have to.

And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all! If there are teams who solely focus all of their efforts on being able to score well on their side and get on the bridge, then they could essentially rule out the need of getting to the other side! And if they train their human players to feed balls over the halfway line, then they're set for the match! They can even steal balls from the opponent's alley if possible.

[DampRobot]

And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all!

Thinking about this design today, I came up with this too. At first glance, it looks like it can't cross half court, but would that really be a problem? I can envision some situations in which a robot was approaching the bridge opposite to 179, which might prevent the other robot from balancing. 179 has probably already thought of this though, along with two different ways to avoid it!

[ThirteenOfTwo]

And that's my point! Maybe we'll start to see more successful robots that don't cross over the halfway point at all!
I'm glad to know that I have a "you-don't-need-to-cross-halfcourt" buddy. :)

179, I absolutely adore this robot. Depending on its scoring prowess, I can see this being a real dominating force at your regionals, but I'm sure that you'll be a great alliance partner no matter what happens. Thanks for sharing your great idea and good luck during the rest of build season!

[FenixPheonix]

They should be able to lower the bridge, I think. They can use the whole ramp as a lever arm to push it down and drive on top of it. It's clearly strong, since they lift their robot with it. Should be able to handle it, I'd guess.

[Mr B]

Wow! Once again you have shown that you are one of the most creative teams in the world. Your concept has completely shifted the paradigm of a difficult three-robot balance. I look forward to seeing you in action in Orlando - expect many suitors.

[Swampdude]

Thank you Andy, Glenn, Roger, Eric, Gary, Mike, Brandon, Sean, Jared, Drew and everyone for all the compliments and interest, we appreciate it. I think the rules vetting is very informative as to how it will be perceived by the refs etc.

To try and answer a few of the questions:

When hanging it doesn't touch the lexan ball guard
There will be rubber strips under the top channel plate
The tip of the ramp retracts 3.5 inches to keep under the 14" perimiter when the ramp is horizontal then pops out when down.
Hadn't thought about the perimiter violation rule but I heard a Q&A allows it on the coopertition ramp without penalty


Another neat feature is the strain guages under the upper channel plate will measure upward force of the bridge so we can determine when opposing bot(s) weight is equal to our bots weight. Very colorful programmable LED strips will run up the sides of the ramp that can be seen from both sides of the ramp. The lights will rise as the weight rises, when they reach the top (equalized) they will blink red indicating whoever is driving out to the other end of the bridge to stop moving, then we lift. Plus we will use them like runway lights while the ramp is ready to be climbed. This bot should come in around 110lbs with bumpers, it's very light. I can't wait to see all this stuff do what it supposedly does.

[coldfusion1279]

Another neat feature is the strain guages under the upper channel plate will measure upward force of the bridge so we can determine when opposing bot(s) weight is equal to our bots weight.

Nice idea. From my experience with strain gauges, I recommend you use a couple of them in different spots along the contact area and average the values. Then you can compare to one single gauge if you so choose. Last thing you want is momentum or non-equilibrium giving false readings.

But you've thought of all this already, haven't you?

[Koko Ed]

Nothing is guaranteed. The average regional match would probably feature teams that have trouble climbing the ramp.

Not to take anything away from 179, but everyone on Chief always freaks out and starts exclaiming "EINSTEIN!!!!" as soon as they see the first out of the box/good robot posted. It's never that simple.

It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

[Andrew Lawrence]

It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

Yup! Best one to date, IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgdGtwQQIo&feature=bf_prev&list=LL02y4Wv89OTj671KdbxCOdg&lf=plpp_video

[pfreivald]

Neat robot! Very aggressive in terms of rules interpretation -- I don't think I'm that brave... I'm not sure if that's a caution or a compliment! :D

[Siri]

Hadn't thought about the perimiter violation rule but I heard a Q&A allows it on the coopertition ramp without penaltyThe Q&A actually said the opposite:
Q:If a robot is designed to be contacted inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing, could a team request a waiver of G27 for touching inside its own frame perimeter to aid in balancing the coopertition bridge with an opponent?
A: No.

So any opponent robot that tries to climb you will earn themselves a G27 violation, complete with technical foul. Of course, you may well find times where this an entirely worthwhile tradeoff. Being qualifications though, I wish your coach luck in negotiating these and determining in-match whether they'll actually happen, if you decide to go that route.

Note that G27 can also earn the opposing robot a yellow card for repeated or egregious violations. You may want a Q&A, but I'd suspect there's nothing much repeated (at least not in a single match, and I doubt you'll coopertition balance with the same robot twice) and certainly not egregious.

[Swampdude]

Video: It's alive! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYpPCqLiEso)

[Grim Tuesday]

Very Very nice. I'm liking the wheelies that you're doing, it's a new method of getting over the barrier!

[Lil' Lavery]

It'll happen again when we get our first great looking robot reveal video (usually reserved for 118). Ever notice you never see one from 1114, 71 or 67 (Wildstang did it in 2004)?

Never?
http://vimeo.com/3277978
;)

[Grim Tuesday]

I always look forward for 148.

[caseydech]

Three things
1: I love the idea of the arm, my team thought about and still might make one of those
2: A concern about a possible issue, when it is latched onto the ramp, the robot's ramp and its latcher ( not sure what to call it) might be both considered outside of the robots perimeter, maybe there would be a way to fix that
3: One of the reasons my team didn't build this right away was because we think there will be a rule update prohibiting this kind of latching on to something
Hopefully it will be allowed, because I love this idea and I'd love to see it in competition, major wowfactor

[c.shu]

I dont see the pictures of this robot everyone is talking about?

[Andrew Lawrence]

I dont see the pictures of this robot everyone is talking about?

It's on the first page.

[mott]

Not to sound too much like a "glass half empty" guy because I'm a huge fan of the basic concept of this machine but...in terms of it's other reported game-play capabilities, has the Swamp team been following this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100696

It's painful and long (unlike this thread which is upbeat and long) but there is meaningful discussion in there about GDC rulings that would seem to make the sprocket components on the underside of the 179 ramp illegal.

I know our team is anxiously awaiting the GDC's response to the open questions posted by 148 and 1619 so hopefully one/both of those replies put us all in the clear!

Great work though and good luck!

[c.shu]

It's on the first page.

I have looked at every page including the first. I dont see any pictures anywhere. Is there a link?

[Andrew Lawrence]

I have looked at every page including the first. I dont see any pictures anywhere. Is there a link?

What browser are you using? They're in Swampdude's post, I think,

[c.shu]

What browser are you using? They're in Swampdude's post, I think,

Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

*Insert "Well there's your problem" reference*
Just kidding

It works fine for me on Safari, Firefox, and Google Chrome, however I haven't tried it on Internet Explorer (and don't plan on it), so I can't say whether or not that's the problem.

[D.Allred]

Internet explorer. I have never had trouble before with pictures.

It might be your network. I have IE8 on my laptop. I can see the pictures on my home network, but not from by business network. My company's firewall blocks several types of media sources like Picasa or Youtube.

[EricLeifermann]

Not to sound too much like a "glass half empty" guy because I'm a huge fan of the basic concept of this machine but...in terms of it's other reported game-play capabilities, has the Swamp team been following this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100696

It's painful and long (unlike this thread which is upbeat and long) but there is meaningful discussion in there about GDC rulings that would seem to make the sprocket components on the underside of the 179 ramp illegal.

I know our team is anxiously awaiting the GDC's response to the open questions posted by 148 and 1619 so hopefully one/both of those replies put us all in the clear!

Great work though and good luck!

I don't see why the sprockets would be illegal. The 1st part of the ramp that is going to cross the frame perimeter is going to be the very top/part that actually touches the carpet. After that everything that comes after will be part of a "contiguous" appendage. Seems legit to me.

[mott]

Unfortunately, it's turned out not to be quite as simple as that...

If you review the entire thread and specifically look at post #78 by artdutra04, you'll probably see the concern. In 179's current design, there would appear to be a point in time during deployment where only an edge of the sprockets would be outside their frame perimeter (because the axle connecting it to the rest of the ramp assembly hasn't yet crossed the frame perimeter) making it discontiguous from the ramp.

[Swampdude]

The pictures are links from our team Facebook page so your firewall is probably blocking them.

As far as the contiguous perimeter issue, we may need to add a contiguous feature until the ramp edge crosses the plane and becomes the leading edge(split second). It's silly stuff like this that give the poor inspectors an arduous task of pushing all these innocent designs back and hold up inspections endlessly. Wouldn't any time a bot tips a little violate that rule (unless it were completely flat on top)?

[EricLeifermann]

Unfortunately, it's turned out not to be quite as simple as that...

If you review the entire thread and specifically look at post #78 by artdutra04, you'll probably see the concern. In 179's current design, there would appear to be a point in time during deployment where only an edge of the sprockets would be outside their frame perimeter (because the axle connecting it to the rest of the ramp assembly hasn't yet crossed the frame perimeter) making it discontiguous from the ramp.

I personally think everyone is looking into this on a microscopic scale when it comes to what is contiguous. If you go to the hardest and strictest enforcement of a definition of a word you will get what everyone is talking about with things being contiguous. I see it as the sprocket is attached to the axle which is attached to the ramp as one assembly which has already crossed the frame perimeter. Yes the sprocket has its individual teeth that make the chain move but its part of 1 part. I get that those teeth will cross the perimeter at a different miniscule time. The GDC's response to the Q&A's seem straight forward to me, i don't get why people are so worried about it.

[artdutra04]

I personally think everyone is looking into this on a microscopic scale when it comes to what is contiguous. If you go to the hardest and strictest enforcement of a definition of a word you will get what everyone is talking about with things being contiguous. I see it as the sprocket is attached to the axle which is attached to the ramp as one assembly which has already crossed the frame perimeter. Yes the sprocket has its individual teeth that make the chain move but its part of 1 part. I get that those teeth will cross the perimeter at a different miniscule time. The GDC's response to the Q&A's seem straight forward to me, i don't get why people are so worried about it.Common sense and what the rules actually say/how the GDC interprets those things are two entirely different beasts.

Common sense says a wheel or sprocket rigidly attached to an appendage that crosses the frame perimeter is obviously contiguous. If you strictly and exactly follow what the GDC has ruled on G21 in the Q&A forum, these are illegal. Until now, the basic gist of all GDC rulings on G21 has been: "if it is outside the frame perimeter, it must be a single contiguous piece (with the test of contiguous-ness only being the on the parts outside the frame perimeter) at all times. If it is not contiguous, it's considered multiple appendages and illegal".

If this seems inane, it's because it is. You can't build robots based upon what your gut says is common sense or what seems to be the intent of the GDC. You have to build your robots based upon exactly what's written in the rules. You also can't decide to arbitrarily enforce GDC rulings on some things (like whips on an intake roller) and not on others (ordinary wheels on an appendage) even though they both violate the contiguous/one appendage/frame perimeter ruling in exactly the same manner.

I'm really hoping the GDC realizes the untenability of the "must be contiguous at all times outside the frame perimeter" position on G21 in today's team update and comes up with a better solution.

[EricLeifermann]

Common sense and what the rules actually say/how the GDC interprets those things are two entirely different beasts.

Common sense says a wheel or sprocket rigidly attached to an appendage that crosses the frame perimeter is obviously contiguous. If you strictly and exactly follow what the GDC has ruled on G21 in the Q&A forum, these are illegal. Until now, the basic gist of all GDC rulings on G21 has been: "if it is outside the frame perimeter, it must be a single contiguous piece (with the test of contiguous-ness only being the on the parts outside the frame perimeter) at all times. If it is not contiguous, it's considered multiple appendages and illegal".

If this seems inane, it's because it is. You can't build robots based upon what your gut says is common sense or what seems to be the intent of the GDC. You have to build your robots based upon exactly what's written in the rules. You also can't decide to arbitrarily enforce GDC rulings on some things (like whips on an intake roller) and not on others (ordinary wheels on an appendage) even though they both violate the contiguous/one appendage/frame perimeter ruling in exactly the same manner.

I'm really hoping the GDC realizes the untenability of the "must be contiguous at all times outside the frame perimeter" position on G21 in today's team update and comes up with a better solution.

I agree with what you are saying but the point i was trying to make in this thread was that they will have already broken the perimeter when the sprockets will cross the perimeter so I (yes im not on the GDC so it doesn't really matter or count) see their appendage as legal.

As for my comment on the microscopic scale people are looking at appendages, I feel that I understand the intent and "description" that the GDC has given of the rule, that I don't see what everyone is so worried about. I understand the logic of their arguments and worries but I don't understand why they have them.

[TerryS]

I have to join the chorus that this is a very innovative and well executed design. What blows me away the most, if I'm reading the date stamp correctly, is that this thread started at the end of January...just over three weeks from kickoff! Your team must have some very talented CAD engineers, machinists and welders to put that together so quickly. Either that or you worked 24/7 till that point.

Bravo! Can't wait to see your shooter!

[Robert Cawthon]

The biggest issue is not what the dictionary says, but what the GDC believes grasping/grappling/reacting is.

And the robot inspectors at the regionals.

[FenixPheonix]

Check the latest team update. It has a revision to G21, adding this:

"All portions of an appendage that are outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous with each other. Very brief violations of the contiguity requirement as a single appendage is being extended or retracted will not be penalized."

'Very brief' isn't very strictly defined. However, I'd say that this design fits within it. So long as all of it is intended to go past and does every time it's extended, I'd say they'd be fine. Thoughts?

[AlexRoberts]

Rampbot!

[Elgin Clock]

Where do the bumpers get mounted, & how would you define the frame perimiter in this instance? :confused:

[TeamUpNext3528]

OH MY GOSH! Amazing amazing! If you guys make it to world i have to see this thing!

[Andrew Lawrence]

OH MY GOSH! Amazing amazing! If you guys make it to world i have to see this thing!

You mean "when" they make it to world's. This robot is by far one of the most innovative designs I've seen all year (Come on other teams!), and I'm willing to bet money that this thing will for sure make it to world's.