Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition

[Andrew Lawrence]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to announce an open design competition for the month of December. The competition is simple: Everyone competing must design a robot in CAD to play Block Barrage, an FRC game designed by myself, Wasay Anwer (wasayanwer97), and another friend who wishes to stay anonymous. We are using this game to teach our teams strategic design in CAD modeling to train them for the build season, and thought it would be a fun idea to open it up as a competition to everyone.

The manual to Block Barrage as well as field CAD models can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KE7wZzBFStGrTJpDcyThG4okDQjb9Sr28KATjK1GqtM/edit?usp=sharing

The rules of this competition are relatively relaxed, since the goal of this competition is to learn and have fun. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to pm me directly or post in this thread.

The competition begins today (December 1st) and ends at the end of the month on December 31st. Two winners will be chosen by a panel of judges before kickoff: one student, and one mentor. The winning student will be awarded with bragging rights and a $50 American Express gift card generously donated by Akash Rastogi. Currently the prize for adults is the satisfaction of inspiring students with your genius design (other prizes may be added as they come, but since it is a learning activity it is all about the students).

Submission: When you are ready to submit your design, email either a Solidworks Pack and Go of the assembly or a STEP file (both is better) to BlockBarrage2013@gmail.com with a small description of your robot and your strategies for the game.

Good luck everyone!

[Nate Bloom]

I was going to do my homework but never mind.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Thank you very much to Akash Rastogi for generously donating a $50 American Express gift card to the winner of the competition!

[Whippet]

Would it be possible to post a CAD of the field in a polygonal format like a .blend, .skp, .stl, or .dae for those of us with macs and no access to Inventor or Solidworks? Thanks!

[Pault]

The field for Block Barrage is a rectangular 27 by 54 ft anti-mecanum carpeted area bounded by alliance walls and side rails.

You made my day.
But unfortunately this carpet doesn't exist. I checked mcmaster.

I might do this competition. It definitely sounds interesting.

[wasayanwer97]

Would it be possible to post a CAD of the field in a polygonal format like a .blend, .skp, .stl, or .dae for those of us with macs and no access to Inventor or Solidworks? Thanks!
Enclosed is the field converted to an stl file.

Let me know if there are any issues.

http://bit.ly/1gwyQIt

[DampRobot]

I really like the SECOND logo. Anyone care to make up what it stands for?

[wasayanwer97]

Student Engineers Constructing Outstanding New Designs

[Akash Rastogi]

Spread this around to kids who don't really use Chief Delphi. The more kids we can get prepared for 2014, the better the season will be for all teams. I wasn't a part of the creation process for Andrew's game, but the intent of it is great. Hope everyone puts in their best effort.


Good luck to whoever enters!

[ttldomination]

Just so I'm clear, students and mentors submit separately correct?

- Sunny G.

[cmrnpizzo14]

I really like the SECOND logo. Anyone care to make up what it stands for?

Secretly
Encouraging
CADing
Of
New
Designs

[FilthyArgonian]

I really like the SECOND logo. Anyone care to make up what it stands for?

STEM
Education for the
Creation of
Omnipresent
Non-mecanum
Drivetrains

[DampRobot]

Is descoring legal? I see no prohibition, but on the other hand...

[Andrew Lawrence]

Just so I'm clear, students and mentors submit separately correct?

- Sunny G.

Yes, students and mentors submit separately.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Is descoring legal? I see no prohibition, but on the other hand...

Descoring is completely legal. That being said, you get a pretty hefty penalty if you knock over a stack in the protected stack zone. Everything else is free game.

[wasayanwer97]

Just so I'm clear, students and mentors submit separately correct?

- Sunny G.

Yes. Students and mentors submit separately.

Collaboration is encouraged though, as always.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Reported.

[ttldomination]

I must say, it's a very interesting game/challenge. I totally dig it. If we weren't already neck deep into VEX, I'd have my team working on this.

Are you guys planning on releasing the design submissions after this is all over? I'd love to see what other people come up with.

Also, dat overpass.
- Sunny G.

[Whippet]

Are stacks required to be supported by the field?

[Andrew Lawrence]

I must say, it's a very interesting game/challenge. I totally dig it. If we weren't already neck deep into VEX, I'd have my team working on this.

Are you guys planning on releasing the design submissions after this is all over? I'd love to see what other people come up with.

Also, dat overpass.
- Sunny G.

I'd personally like to see releases similar to teams unveiling their robots after build season, but we are leaving the choice to unveil up to the submitters. Whatever they design is their property, so it'll be their choice. That being said, as an individual waiting for kickoff, I'd suggest teams unveil their robots at least after the 31st when what you show won't affect anyone else's designs. It's fun to see what others created, and maybe can provide some last minute inspiration for a design before the build season begins.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Are stacks required to be supported by the field?

Yes, stacks may not be supported by robots or anything else (this includes alliance walls and railings). They can be close, but cannot be supported by them.

[swwrobotics]

The field for Block Barrage is a rectangular 27 by 54 ft anti-mecanum carpeted area bounded by alliance walls and side rails.You made my day.
But unfortunately this carpet doesn't exist. I checked mcmaster.

I might do this competition. It definitely sounds interesting.

And thennnn, this came up--->

‘Standard’ FRC Penalties - i.e. no pinning, no chainsaws, ect. Violations of this are scorers discretion. Subject to change.

Penalty: 100,000,000 points.

Gotta figure out some strategy to make people pin me...

[Jay O'Donnell]

Not sure if I'm just missing it but where do robots start in autonomous and do they get any preloaded crates?

[wasayanwer97]

And thennnn, this came up--->



Gotta figure out some strategy to make people pin me...

A very strong electromagnet, perhaps? :rolleyes:

[Andrew Lawrence]

Gotta figure out some strategy to make people pin me...

By pin, it means the usual "pin longer than 5 seconds". This is explored further on in the rules. I wouldn't base a strategy on trying to incur penalties. Remember forcing a penalty on an opponent is a penalty itself. ;)

[Andrew Lawrence]

Not sure if I'm just missing it but where do robots start in autonomous and do they get any preloaded crates?

Right under 3.0 - The Game, it lists the starting conditions. There are no preloaded crates, but teams are free to pick up off the floor or go to their loading station during autonomous.

[DampRobot]

How are teams seeded? Do eliminations work any different from regular matches? How does alliance selection work?

[orangemoore]

Is there a max # of crates that can be held?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Is there a max # of crates that can be held?

No limit.

[wasayanwer97]

How are teams seeded? Do eliminations work any different from regular matches? How does alliance selection work?

Seeding is based on a simple win/loss system. It should not be a consideration for design (although it has been in some official games)

Eliminations and seeding matches should work the same. Alliance section wouldnt be different from the norm.

Note:
Although we're happy to see all these questions, this was purely released for the sake of offering a fun design challenge.
Don't take it for much more than that ;)

[Whippet]

Yes, stacks may not be supported by robots or anything else (this includes alliance walls and railings). They can be close, but cannot be supported by them.

So if my robot is contacting my stack at the end of the match, the score isn't counted?

[Andrew Lawrence]

So if my robot is contacting my stack at the end of the match, the score isn't counted?

Nope. If your stack touches anything other than the floor of the field, it gets no points.

[cadandcookies]

Do stacks have to be completely isolated from other objects? IE, if I have a structure such that a bunch of blocks are on top of each other but one block (its location inconsequential to the overall structural integrity of the stack) happens to be touching a wall, is the entire stack invalidated? I'm fairly sure the answer is yes, but just a small clarification.

Also, awesome job to the crew that put this together. You guys are part of what makes the FIRST community and CD so awesome. Hopefully I'll be able to carve out enough time for a submission...

[Andrew Lawrence]

Do stacks have to be completely isolated from other objects? IE, if I have a structure such that a bunch of blocks are on top of each other but one block (its location inconsequential to the overall structural integrity of the stack) happens to be touching a wall, is the entire stack invalidated? I'm fairly sure the answer is yes, but just a small clarification.

Also, awesome job to the crew that put this together. You guys are part of what makes the FIRST community and CD so awesome. Hopefully I'll be able to carve out enough time for a submission...

Thanks a bunch! We really appreciate the compliments, and thank you and everyone else for participating in this!

To answer your question, if you're stacking near a wall, and one of the blocks barely touches the wall, you'll probably be fine. The rule was made because we didn't want people purposely stacking against the wall or another object for back support, or "accidentally" stacking so that a few or more of their blocks touch and receive support. Remember this is just a design challenge. It's unlikely the game will actually be played (though I'd love to play it).

[nathannfm]

For the first time in history asking for rule clarification on CD will get you an official response. :yikes:

So "must stay within 18 inches of the frame perimeter" meaning you can have 2 extensions in opposite directions at the same time and still be legal?

Also, how (and by whom) will the designs be judged? On clever innovative ways of accomplishing the challenge, the robot that the judges think is most likely to win with a competent driver, or the skill/detail of the CAD work?

Is there a specific purpose to the overpass that I am missing? Can you stack on top of it?

There is no benefit to creating a stack in a tank, right, it just has to be in there?

And why is there no score for stacks in auton?

How much of the CAD has to be your own work, I assume there will be no penalty for downloading the CAD of a CIM but what about a custom gearbox or an entire drivetrain (credit given of course) so that you can focus on designing a mechanism. (not that I would do that, but it should be stated for the rules) (Also, you may want to put a link to this thread in the rules as the official Q&A)

Thanks for making this guys, I will be sure to show it to the MOE Design team and may just participate myself.

Edit: Thought of one more, If you are able to create a stack where only one block is touching the ground but there is more than one block per "layer" would that be legal for all the blocks? (Sorry if i'm lawyering)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Also, how (and by whom) will the designs be judged? On clever innovative ways of accomplishing the challenge, the robot that the judges think is most likely to win with a competent driver, or the skill/detail of the CAD work?


Personally, I'd treat it as an exercise to develop effective ways of describing your design/process. Being as this is a fictional exercise perhaps discuss methods for evaluation that WOULD be use. Assume you are talking to judges about various awards and work from that perspective. Might even be a cool chance to collaborate with your awards/judges team.

[BBray_T1296]

Is climbing into the tank legal? huehuehue :D

[Andrew Lawrence]

For the first time in history asking for rule clarification on CD will get you an official response. :yikes:

So "must stay within 18 inches of the frame perimeter" meaning you can have 2 extensions in opposite directions at the same time and still be legal?

Also, how (and by whom) will the designs be judged? On clever innovative ways of accomplishing the challenge, the robot that the judges think is most likely to win with a competent driver, or the skill/detail of the CAD work?

Is there a specific purpose to the overpass that I am missing? Can you stack on top of it?

There is no benefit to creating a stack in a tank, right, it just has to be in there?

And why is there no score for stacks in auton?

How much of the CAD has to be your own work, I assume there will be no penalty for downloading the CAD of a CIM but what about a custom gearbox or an entire drivetrain (credit given of course) so that you can focus on designing a mechanism. (not that I would do that, but it should be stated for the rules) (Also, you may want to put a link to this thread in the rules as the official Q&A)

Thanks for making this guys, I will be sure to show it to the MOE Design team and may just participate myself.

To answer your questions in order:

1) There is no limit to the amount of extensions, just how far they are from the frame perimeter.

2) The designs and strategies will be judged by a secret panel of judges who will score the designs based on how they approach the game, what they try and accomplish, how well their design is capable of accomplishing it, what the strategy is, and how well the design plays to the strategy.

3) The main objective we had in mind for the overpass was to limit maneuverability based on robot height. If your robot cannot fit under the overpass, the only way to get to the other side of the field is to go through the other area, which isn't too wide, and greatly limits the number of paths your robot can take. Sort of like how being short allowed you to drive under the pyramid this year. You can stack on it all you want. It's not going to get you any points.

4) You do not get more points from stacking in tanks than you do anywhere else.

5) Stacks do not score in auton because they are scored at the end of the game. There is also a chance they can be knocked over during the round. It would be like hanging on the pyramid in auton this year, then climbing off during teleop and ending the match off the pyramid. No use in scoring until after the round ends.

6) Your design can be all COTS for all we care. Just like normal competition. We want to see your approach to the game, and how effective it could potentially be.

Hope this helps, and I'll definitely put the link to this thread in the Manual, thank you for the tip!

[Andrew Lawrence]

Is climbing into the tank legal? huehuehue :D

I know it's not specifically stated in the rules, but I'm gonna say no on this one. I'll let it fall under the "general FIRST rules" part of the manual. Would FIRST allow you to stuff your robot into the frisbee goals in Ultimate Ascent?

That's what I thought.

[ttldomination]

Is there a max # of crates that can be held?

Careful with this. I thought that we could also look into hoarding crates, but each one is ~8.88 lbs. Simply carrying three would mean trying to manipulate ~26.7 lbs.

- Sunny G.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Careful with this. I thought that we could also look into hoarding crates, but each one is ~8.88 lbs. Simply carrying three would mean trying to manipulate ~26.7 lbs.

- Sunny G.

Check out 2005 ;)

[MichaelBick]

Careful with this. I thought that we could also look into hoarding crates, but each one is ~8.88 lbs. Simply carrying three would mean trying to manipulate ~26.7 lbs.

- Sunny G.

Even with 1 crate, on shelves you are holding 9 lbs 9ft in the air, which is just awful for your CG. With the new perimeter rules(shorter robot) I would guess that it would be really easy for robots to tip over.

[Whippet]

What are the rules on crossing the center line during autonomous to collect crates?

[Andrew Lawrence]

What are the rules on crossing the center line during autonomous to collect crates?

There are no rules. Go nuts. Just remember to follow the height rules per side.

[DampRobot]

Check out 2005 ;)

What was 2005 like?

(I mean in terms of the engineering challenges. I know teams had to manipulate large tetras.)

[Andrew Schreiber]

What was 2005 like?

(I mean in terms of the engineering challenges. I know teams had to manipulate large tetras.)

Large tetras that weights 9 lbs and some change. Might be a good place to look at how teams did it. How they stayed upright despite some teams holding 3/4 tetras 10'+ in the air.

[Anthony Galea]

Unless I've missed something, I cannot find where the other 105 crates that are not in the loading station go. Can someone clarify this?

[wasayanwer97]

Unless I've missed something, I cannot find where the other 105 crates that are not in the loading station go. Can someone clarify this?

There are 40 on each side of the field, placed randomly at the beginning of each match.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Unless I've missed something, I cannot find where the other 105 crates that are not in the loading station go. Can someone clarify this?

There are 40 on each side of the field, placed randomly at the beginning of each match.

http://i.imgur.com/hDcaTd7.png

[Anthony Galea]

http://i.imgur.com/hDcaTd7.png

*facepalm*

Sorry!

[Andrew Lawrence]

*facepalm*

Sorry!

It's all good. We're only human. I'm sure someone else had the same question as you and your post cleared it up for them.

[MichaelBick]

I know you said that for descoring, everything but the stacked crates are fair game. Does this include the auton crates? Also, does the multipler(2x or .5x) apply to auton crates?

[Invictus3593]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KE7wZzBFStGrTJpDcyThG4okDQjb9Sr28KATjK1GqtM/edit?usp=sharing

I laughed way too hard at the title of your organization. Clever. XD

[Andrew Lawrence]

I know you said that for descoring, everything but the stacked crates are fair game. Does this include the auton crates? Also, does the multipler(2x or .5x) apply to auton crates?

The only thing that cannot be descored are stacked crates in the protected stack zone (the 18x18 square colored on each driver station wall) . Any stack outside of that zone is free game.

When descoring, you take away points at the value they are worth at the time of descoring. If you descore in teleop, the other alliance loses the amount of points they'd earn in teleop for that object. If you descore during autonomous, they lose the points that object would have scored in autonomous.

The multiplier crate changes score based off of the total score in a zone. If there is a mix of auton and teleop points in a zone, then it either doubles or halves the total points in the zone.

[Akash Rastogi]

Penalties are a bit harsh, no?

Also - very cool to see so many people involved in this. Good work Andrew & company.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Penalties are a bit harsh, no?

Also - very cool to see so many people involved in this. Good work Andrew & company.

I was gonna make them 256 to some power (random number, no meaning), but decided that would be a bit harsh.

And I'm also glad to see so many people involved! I never imagined this would get as popular as it is! And thank you again for helping us out by donating a prize to the winning students. We really appreciate it!

[raychensg]

I think you forgot to change the logo on the side of the crate. :)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6-Ok4EC7F1IdesiikqCr0jLtUMyN2ZsQzQrQse7dzzjRl27HZGBJ IbdnNAUAXhponlldfqRhI5aFon0WE5wwM2XnIMFjvXzq3hArS0 9AZE8ebUpnQ_nmGoHg5A

This sounds like an amazing competition; perfect for getting hyped before build!
I hope SRC (SECOND Robotics Competition) can become a regular thing in the future!

[ehfeinberg]

Now that I have had a few days to look over the competition, I thought I would share my initial thoughts on the game and share my initial design strategy before I go and CAD it.

Thoughs:

Stacking is a non-factor (like stacking in '03). Stacking is significantly more difficult than dropping crates in the tank (1pt and 2pt goal) however, until you get a stack taller than 6 crates (3*4=12pts), you could gain more points just dropping the crates in the 2pt goal. (2*6=12pts). And with only one safe place really to create your stack, why waste the time making a stack when a robot could quickly just knock it over.
Red alliance has a major advantage (for experienced teams) over blue alliance because of where the loading stations are. It is much easier to pick up a crate from the loading station then one scattered around the field, so this will be the main supply of crates for each alliance. Because of this, the distance from the red alliance loading station around the tank to the 2pt goal is much shorter than the distance from the blue alliance loading station to the blue 2pt goal. Also, the distance from the red alliance loading station under the overpass to the 1pt goal is much closer than the same trip by the blue alliance. This could allow red to score a few more crates a match just because of shorter driving times. However, if you are a low skilled team who is taller than 30" but can only score in the 1pt goal, you would much rather prefer the blue alliance.
Auton is near impossible. With robots unable to start preloaded with a crate, they would have to autonomously find one, and then score it. With an additional 40 crates scattered around the field, it would make preprogramed pathing near impossible. Expect no teams to ever score in auton.
There is not much difference between the 1pt goal vs the 2pt goal if you are an experienced team mechanical wise except: 1pt and being able to go under the overpass vs. 1&2pt and not able to go under the overpass. So does being able to go under the overpass allow you to score twice as fast?
4pt goal is significantly more difficult than the 1/2pt goal. I would say that for 99% of teams they would be better served making a fast 1/2pt scorer than a lousy, slow 4pt scorer (im just bias due to how slow half the robots were in 2011 to reach 108 inches tall). However, if your team has the ability to make a fast elevator, the 4pt goal is much worth it due to it being less congested and worth more.


If my team was building a robot for this game (note MY TEAM not 1114). I would build a simple robot to pick a crate off the ground or from the loading station and then lift it and dump it in the 2pt goal with a small elevator. I would make it extremely fast and durable, using a 6 wheel WCD with a two speed transmission geared for 4-6/14-16fps. I would try and keep the CG as low as possible, but I would not worry about having it be under 30". I'll post my design in a week or so (I came up with a pretty clever gripper design).

About the game itself, I like the general idea for the game, but there are a few major flaws. Like said above, the red alliance has a major advantage because of where their loading station is, along with how most of the field will be littered in crates getting in every ones way. If I was to make a few improvements, I would move the loading station to the other side and ditch the overpass, along with get rid of the random crates and only have a few to start on the field while putting all of them in the loading zones. By removing the "random" crates (like is someone actually going to have a random number generator to determine where the crates should go) and placing it in the loading stations, you create a less cluttered game while making field reset much easier and quicker.

Also with the crates, they would most likely shatter if dropped from the 4pt goal, let alone into the tank. So I will just assume that they won't be destroyed in competition for my design.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Red alliance has a major advantage (for experienced teams) over blue alliance because of where the loading stations are. It is much easier to pick up a crate from the loading station then one scattered around the field, so this will be the main supply of crates for each alliance. Because of this, the distance from the red alliance loading station around the tank to the 2pt goal is much shorter than the distance from the blue alliance loading station to the blue 2pt goal. Also, the distance from the red alliance loading station under the overpass to the 1pt goal is much closer than the same trip by the blue alliance. This could allow red to score a few more crates a match just because of shorter driving times. However, if you are a low skilled team who is taller than 30" but can only score in the 1pt goal, you would much rather prefer the blue alliance.


The distances to any particular object is the same for both alliances. I'm unsure of what you're referring to.

[echin]

Does "40 crates randomly positioned on each side of the white line." mean that there are 40 crates on the field total, or that there are 40 on each side?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Does "40 crates randomly positioned on each side of the white line." mean that there are 40 crates on the field total, or that there are 40 on each side?

40 on each side, 80 starting on the field in total. This added to the 25 crates in each loading station makes 130 useable crates in the game.

http://i.imgur.com/Tkyv45f.png

[ehfeinberg]

The distances to any particular object is the same for both alliances. I'm unsure of what you're referring to.

Please excuse my terrible paint skills, but this should explain.

http://i.imgur.com/3hOVhkz.png

Notice the red 2pt path is shorter than the blue 2pt path?

And how the red 1pt path is shorter than the blue 1pt path?

And both by a good 5ish feet.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Please excuse my terrible paint skills, but this should explain.

http://i.imgur.com/3hOVhkz.png

Notice the red 2pt path is shorter than the blue 2pt path?

And how the red 1pt path is shorter than the blue 1pt path?

And both by a good 5ish feet.

You can use the path through the overpass to score into the 2 point goal. Why go all the way around to do it?

[ehfeinberg]

You can use the path through the overpass to score into the 2 point goal. Why go all the way around to do it?

Because to go under the overpass, the robot needs to be under 30 inches (29 to be safe) and the 2pt goal is 60 inches high which is not a lot of space to create something to lift the block up (and the 14 inch extension rule doesn't help). That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I would say only the extremely competitive teams could do that successfully. The rest will just make a taller 2pt scorer robot forcing them to drive around the tank. So if the majority of teams have to go around the tank, then the blue alliance will have an advantage.

[ehfeinberg]

The six point per crate in the high tank goal value you cited is only applicable during autonomous. After that, stacking three crates would earn you nine points, while placing three crates in the high tank goal would only earn you six points

I assume you use 6 crates for each method.

For stacking its 3 * (6-2) = 12 because there are 4 more crates stacked over two.

For the 2pt goal 2 * 6 = 12

So you have to stack higher than 6 for it to be more worth it than just dropping them in the 2pt goal.

[echin]

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

[ehfeinberg]

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

I think this is stems from confusing language in the actual manual. "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2)." I read it to be 3 * the additional crates stacked above 2. So if it is a 3 crate stack, it would be 3 * 1 (because 3 is one more than 2) = 3. However, I now see how you can read it the other way.

If this is the case, I would take back saying that stacking is a non-factor and amend the statement to say stacking is not the most effective way to score.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Because to go under the overpass, the robot needs to be under 30 inches (29 to be safe) and the 2pt goal is 60 inches high which is not a lot of space to create something to lift the block up (and the 14 inch extension rule doesn't help). That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I would say only the extremely competitive teams could do that successfully. The rest will just make a taller 2pt scorer robot forcing them to drive around the tank. So if the majority of teams have to go around the tank, then the blue alliance will have an advantage.

You forget teams can pick up off the ground. There are over 61% of the useable game pieces on the ground to start with.

And I've already seen designs of teams who can successfully dump into the high tank and fit under 29 inches tall. Just gotta think outside the box (or in this case, the crate). ;)

[ehfeinberg]

You forget teams can pick up off the ground. There are over 61% of the useable game pieces on the ground to start with.

And I've already seen designs of teams who can successfully dump into the high tank and fit under 29 inches tall. Just gotta think outside the box (or in this case, the crate). ;)

There is a difference between designs and pratical robots. For all intensive purposes, I could build a giant sling shot to shot the crates into the tank. But just because I could build it doesn't mean that it is effective or that I could build it well.

And besides, having a playing field which is non symmetrical is going to cause one alliance to have advantages over the other.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

I think this is stems from confusing language in the actual manual. "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2)." I read it to be 3 * the additional crates stacked above 2. So if it is a 3 crate stack, it would be 3 * 1 (because 3 is one more than 2) = 3. However, I now see how you can read it the other way.

If this is the case, I would take back saying that stacking is a non-factor and amend the statement to say stacking is not the most effective way to score.

I agree the wording can indeed be interpreted both ways, and unfortunately it was difficult to word this section of the rules. The way it will be "scored" is only the crates above the two crate mark will be counted. So in a stack of 6 crates, only 4 of the crates are above the 2 required minimum crates, which results in 12 points (4 crates * 3 points each = 12 points).

[MichaelBick]

The non symetrical playing field isn't great, but it isn't that bad. I agree the game could be better if it was symetrical.

I also agree that the shelf is a bit high. Dense game pieces + small robot sizes makes me question whether it would actually be possible to build a good shelf robot.

That said, if you can't think of a method(not including shooting) to build a 36" tall robot that can dump in the high goal, you aren't thinking hard enough. We have a design to dump in the shelf while still staying under 36".

[Andrew Lawrence]

There is a difference between designs and pratical robots. For all intensive purposes, I could build a giant sling shot to shot the crates into the tank. But just because I could build it doesn't mean that it is effective or that I could build it well.

And besides, having a playing field which is non symmetrical is going to cause one alliance to have advantages over the other.

I'm quite sure these designs will work. And this is a design competition. Nothing will be tested in real life, so the only way teams will be able to prove their idea works is with documentation and reasonable explanation. If you can back up your design well enough, you could build Plowie with a slingshot and magnetic pickup system on a unicycle stand and still win. That being said, you've got to back it up extremely well.

As for the symmetrical part, that's just how the game goes. I think the difference is negligible enough not to make a difference. Besides, as the manual always says "The best teams will always design around these small differences".

[JosephC]

To everyone saying that the non-symmetrical field is unfair or biased. Please remember this is a design competition, not an actual game that you would be building a robot to play. Whether one alliance has an unfair advantage or not doesn't matter because your designed robot will never have to be placed into one of those alliances.

[ehfeinberg]

To everyone saying that the non-symmetrical field is unfair or biased. Please remember this is a design competition, not an actual game that you would be building a robot to play. Whether one alliance has an unfair advantage or not doesn't matter because your designed robot will never have to be placed into one of those alliances.

A design is only as good as the strategy it executes.

And I would go even farther to say that all designs (for the same strategy) are equal in FRC. The only difference is how well a team executes a design. A team who does a simple task very well will do much better than a team who does a complicated task not too well.

So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy.

[MichaelBick]

So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy.

I don't find this competition to be all about developing strategy. I think it will also help our CAD team work better together and faster.

[Chris is me]

I don't find this competition to be all about developing strategy. I think it will also help our CAD team work better together and faster.

All design in FRC is (should be) strategy driven. If you're not thinking about strategy when designing something for this competition, you're not really practicing the essential skills you'll need to have finely polished in 30 days.

This game is challenging, the manual is hard to understand, and a lot of the challenges have some annoying constraints / features that make them quite hard to achieve. But something will probably work. Now is a good time to practice the use of center of mass analysis, material properties, etc. in order to design a robot that is able to complete the game task with any semblance of stability.

In short, sure you could just say "this is a design challenge" and skip finding an optimal strategy, but why miss out on all aspects of the experience?

I would say the asymmetric field is a big problem of the game design, particularly the location of the limbo bar (I think just removing this would fix a lot of the game). However, it's not like FRC games don't have big flaws to design around as well.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Can the Alliance Crate be scored in any of the alliance's 4 scoring areas? So if I place it in either the Low or High Goal in the middle, it doubles the crates in that quadrant. If I place it on the Shelf, it doubles the crates on the shelf. If I place it in my protected zone, it doubles whatever stack I may have in my protected zone. Same goes for halving the other alliance's crates.

[MichaelBick]

All design in FRC is (should be) strategy driven. If you're not thinking about strategy when designing something for this competition, you're not really practicing the essential skills you'll need to have finely polished in 30 days.


I do agree that strategy is important and that if you plan to enter you should be practicing these skills. However, I don't feel that the competition is "aimless" if you don't focus on strategy. Any and all practice is good practice.

[TheFrozenSlink]

Is it legal to take blocks out of opposing alliance scoring zones, and is it the same for the alliance block?
Also what is an "anti mecanum" floor?
What exactly is this shelf for?

Is it okay if I Frankenstein previous robots together rather than make everything from scratch, (IE drivetrain)...would you even notice :P?

[Chris is me]

Is it legal to take blocks out of opposing alliance scoring zones, and is it the same for the alliance block?

Yes, in any zone except the protected zone.

Also what is an "anti mecanum" floor?

A bad joke. It's carpet.

What exactly is this shelf for?

It is the high goal. Crates scored on the shelf get 4 points each in teleop.

[JosephC]

A design is only as good as the strategy it executes.

And I would go even farther to say that all designs (for the same strategy) are equal in FRC. The only difference is how well a team executes a design. A team who does a simple task very well will do much better than a team who does a complicated task not too well.

So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy.

I'm not saying that strategy isn't an important role, because I know for a fact it is. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if one side is biased or not. If this was actual FRC game is would be a huge issue, but since we're CADing robot and not actually competing with them, it doesn't matter how biased the field is towards certain alliances. You could design a 29" high robot that scores in the 2 pt goals, and state in your strategy brief that it goes the fastest way possible depending on which alliance your on.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Can the Alliance Crate be scored in any of the alliance's 4 scoring areas? So if I place it in either the Low or High Goal in the middle, it doubles the crates in that quadrant. If I place it on the Shelf, it doubles the crates on the shelf. If I place it in my protected zone, it doubles whatever stack I may have in my protected zone. Same goes for halving the other alliance's crates.

You are correct.

[Andrew Lawrence]

To those saying the red alliance has a huge advantage over the blue alliance, remember this game isn't actually going to be played. Because of this factor, it's up to you how you design your strategy, and our judges will be looking at that.

If you feel the red alliance has a significant advantage that will greatly affect your design, then put yourself on the red alliance if it makes you happy. Go ahead, we'll let you choose your alliance!

[Gregor]

This game is challenging, the manual is hard to understand, and a lot of the challenges have some annoying constraints / features that make them quite hard to achieve.

Hey, that sounds familiar!

[Whippet]

Just thought I'd post a little teaser for what's to come:

(Does not contain actual manipulator, just drivetrain and electronics board)

P.S. I think that we will be able to tell what subteam everyone is on based on how much space they leave for electronics in their design. :rolleyes:

[TheFrozenSlink]

It is the high goal. Crates scored on the shelf get 4 points each in teleop.

I meant the self in the middle by the scoring tubs, I shouldve been clearer my bad.

[Whippet]

I meant the self in the middle by the scoring tubs, I shouldve been clearer my bad.

The "overpass" is simply there to encourage shorter robot designs, as quite a bit of time is saved by driving under the overpass rather than around the tank.

[BrendanB]

Small teaser from the robot I am working on. I have been collaborating with one of our students who is much further ahead compared to me.

We were both designing Logomotion robots to practice CADing a full robot when this game was announced so we decided to move to this project as it was more challenging since it was a fresh game.

Thanks to the group who decided to put this together. This has been quite the challenge and I can't wait to see what we end up with. Great practice for 2014!

And now, I'll leave you with this.

[Whippet]

Small teaser from the robot I am working on. I have been collaborating with one of our students who is much further ahead compared to me.

We were both designing Logomotion robots to practice CADing a full robot when the challenge was announced so we decided to move to this project as it was more challenging since it was fresh game.

Thanks to the group who decided to put this together. This has been quite the challenge and I can't wait to see what we end up with. Great practice for 2014!

And now, I'll leave you with this.

Wow, that's a cool design! Am I correct in thinking that it dumps large quantities of crates in the large tank from that tube?

[BrendanB]

Wow, that's a cool design! Am I correct in thinking that it dumps large quantities of crates in the large tank from that tube?

Possibly.

Although I can't confirm what the end manipulator will do/look like.

[Gregor]

Small teaser from the robot I am working on. I have been collaborating with one of our students who is much further ahead compared to me.

We were both designing Logomotion robots to practice CADing a full robot when this game was announced so we decided to move to this project as it was more challenging since it was fresh game.

Thanks to the group who decided to put this together. This has been quite the challenge and I can't wait to see what we end up with. Great practice for 2014!

And now, I'll leave you with this.

Yellow is the new pink?

[BrendanB]

Yellow is the new pink?

What makes you think this is a new concept? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92855&highlight=pic.+rush+27)

[Chris is me]

Some stuff for designers to consider working on this challenge:

1. CG is a *huge* problem with this game. You're given a smaller base than normal, a heavy, and the opportunity to lift it more than 8 feet in the air. Especially if you are lifting more than one cube at a time, CG needs to be a driving design focus. How many pounds can you afford for your end effector, keeping in mind you're already putting 9 pounds "up high" before you even start?

2. How will you grip the cubes? A 9 pound wooden game piece with smooth edges is not going to automatically work with any permutation of a roller claw. How will your manipulator handle the forces at play? Can you create the necessary static friction force with your rollers? We don't have the advantage of actual prototyping here, but try to be realistic.

3. You're only given 18 inches of extension. With the bumpers, that number shrinks to ~15 inches, not much bigger than the length of one cube. Keep this in mind for any over the bumper mechanisms.

I've been wrapping my head around this when I have spare time between exams. I'll post a "teaser" of what I'm doing in the next day or two, and I'd be happy to explain what I came up with when and if I finish a basic model.

[Answer42]

Possibly.

Although I can't confirm what the end manipulator will do/look like.

If I didn't know any better I would guess that was 1678's drive system from last year painted yellow.

[BrendanB]

If I didn't know any better I would guess that was 1678's drive system from last year painted yellow.

It does have resemblances to 1678's 2013 drive but I didn't base my design off of theirs. Its a plate drive that I designed this fall using 3/16in plate, 8wd, 4in colson wheels, and ball shifters. Everything is run with chains with sliding standoffs as tensioners.

Oddly enough I did talk to one of their mentors Adrian Clark about a previous version of this drive (that used WCP single speed gearboxes) and he offered some excellent feedback, suggestions, and his thoughts about plate drives and West Coast Drives. It was great being able to talk to someone from the west cost on the matter as it seems there are big differences in how east cost and west coast team's design drivebases. We also had a good discussion on resources and how we use them.

So no it isn't 1678's drive but it was influenced by their mentors. :)

[Gregor]

What makes you think this is a new concept? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92855&highlight=pic.+rush+27)

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27298

[s_forbes]

*retracted, wrong thread, oops!*

[echin]

Here is my teaser.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxrM5TU8rVcOQ2taX0NfLTFTWE1wd2JUTmlJQ3NHNk5xYkZv/edit?usp=sharing

My robot works by using a giant yellow cloud of magical dust which teleports all of the crates onto the shelf within the first 3 seconds of the match.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Here is my teaser.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxrM5TU8rVcOQ2taX0NfLTFTWE1wd2JUTmlJQ3NHNk5xYkZv/edit?usp=sharing

My robot works by using a giant yellow cloud of magical dust which teleports all of the crates onto the shelf within the first 3 seconds of the match.

Do I spy a swerve? I'll have to talk with Brendan about that now..;)

[echin]

Yes, I am planning on using a swerve. I do not think that Brendan is, but I'm not sure.

[Andrew Lawrence]

With the new release of the VEXpro/WCP product line, we'd love to see teams utilize these new COTS items in their designs! We're excited to see the robots in 2014 use these parts, and more excited to see your designs before kickoff!

[Akash Rastogi]

Update:

In addition to the $50 gift card, the student winner of this design competition will receive a very cool shirt, generously donated by the folks at VEX Robotics.

When we select a winner, we will ask for your size and address to get your prize out to you ASAP!

Hope that is enough incentive to continue on with this design competition. Make sure you do your very best!

Good luck!

-Akash

.

[nathannfm]

Update:

In addition to the $50 gift card, the student winner of this design competition will receive a very cool shirt, generously donated by the folks at VEX Robotics.

When we select a winner, we will ask for your size and address to get your prize out to you ASAP!

.

If a team of students win do they all get shirts?

[echin]

Do we have to include bolts/velcro/rivets in our CAD models?

[Chris is me]

I'm really far behind on this competition, so I don't know if I'll get things done with how slow I am at Inventor, but I thought I'd post a picture from a few days ago and explain some of my thoughts on design for this game.

http://i.imgur.com/RkppmH3.jpg

Essentially there's the important parts of the drivetrain and intake. The drivetrain uses a 3 CIM single speed through 5 inch wheels. Geared for about 9 FPS - the robot is rarely traveling more than half the length of the field. Internal belts handle power transmission. 1/16th drop - the math says a no-drop drive would have worked, but I wanted a little just to be safe.

The intake is affixed to the drivetrain and not any kind of elevation mechanism. (Why do you think this is? Will explain more at end of challenge). Two "flippers" feature 1" "marshmallow wheels" driven by BAG motors running through VersaPlanetary transmissions. These are pneumatically actuated to allow for pressure on the crates and the ability to release crates from its grip. I still need to figure out exactly how I'm mounting the pistons - right now they are concentric with holes on the chassis and flippers in order to get the motion figured out.

Ultimately I think one of the biggest challenges of the game is securely gripping the game piece. Dropping a 9 pound crate has serious consequences for any robot underneath it, and I don't think just any roller claw is able to lift a crate off the ground. I can't wait to see what others come up with.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Do we have to include bolts/velcro/rivets in our CAD models?

It's up to you. It's a design competition, so I don't believe our judges will be looking specifically for every single detail that isn't self-explanatory. If there's a hole in the tubing that matches the hole in a gusset, they will know a bolt/rivet goes there. Rule of thumb - if it matters to how the design works, put one in IF it isn't already obvious.


Also, Chris, great looking design so far!

[valeriemoore]

I'm joining in this challenge really late, as in Today.

Is it OK for Two students to work on the same CAD?

[Andrew Lawrence]

I'm joining in this challenge really late, as in Today.

Is it OK for Two students to work on the same CAD?

It's allowed.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Reminder: The Design Competition will end on the 31st of this month, which is in 3 days! You need to send your submission in to BlockBarrage2013@gmail.com before then in order to get it judged.

Your submission must include:
-Your CAD model assembly either as a STEP file or as a Solidworks Pack and Go zip file.
-A short written description of your robot, your strategy, and the engineering process behind your design.
-Your name (and names of those who helped you in the project, if applicable)
-Team affiliation (if applicable)
-Student or mentor

We already have a few submissions, and we're excited to see the rest of them!

[Akash Rastogi]

If a team of students win do they all get shirts?

Sorry, no. A single t-shirt will be awarded. I did not plan ahead for group submissions.

-Akash

[Andrew Lawrence]

If a team of students win do they all get shirts?

Part of the challenge is if a team wins when there's only one prize, they must employ teamwork and gracious professionalism and share it.

Or give it to their CAD mentor. ;)

[Chris is me]

Any chance you could extend it to 12:01 AM on the 4th? :/

Oh well, I'll post a crayola drawing of what I would have finished if I had time. I didn't want to work super hard when I needed to catch up on sleep for Kickoff, I guess...

[Andrew Lawrence]

Any chance you could extend it to 12:01 AM on the 4th? :/

Oh well, I'll post a crayola drawing of what I would have finished if I had time. I didn't want to work super hard when I needed to catch up on sleep for Kickoff, I guess...

I'm sure what you have now + crayola drawing will suffice in inspiring students.

While this is a fun competition, we do encourage everyone to catch up on sleep before the build season. This is just for practice. You need to be prepared for the real deal.

[echin]

For the write up, what is the definition of short?

[Andrew Lawrence]

For the write up, what is the definition of short?

As my Literature teacher always says: "As long as you need to get the point across, and no longer than that".

Our judges don't want to be reading pages of paper, but they are interested in your design.

[VioletElizabeth]

When you say the CAD is due on the 31st, do you mean due by midnight on the 31st or due before the 31st, as in midnight on the 30th?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Midnight of the 31st/First thing in the morning January 1st. Though I suggest celebrating New Years with friends and family and not working on CAD.

[BrendanB]

Here is my final submission. Pretty surprised I "finished" as I've never worked on a full scale robot on my own, just assemblies here and there. If I had more time there was a long list of items I would have changed (mainly the inside of the arm, the claw, and the pivot). I had little to no foreknowledge of telescoping lifts going into this challenge so this would definitely use several more revisions before it hit production level but I'm happy with the results.

echin and I collaborated on the design/strategy portion and then each built separate robots (no shared CAD files). There are a lot of neat differences between the two but I'm excited for when we make one together next month!

Thanks to the organizers and everyone involved on this design challenge! This was a great pre-season activity and hope to see it again next year so we can integrate it with our fall activities for CAD training!

http://i.imgur.com/GCXIO61.png

http://i.imgur.com/AtJ6Fci.png

http://i.imgur.com/YOEyiTA.png

[Michael Corsetto]

Here is my final submission. Pretty surprised I "finished" as I've never worked on a full scale robot on my own, just assemblies here and there. If I had more time there was a long list of items I would have changed (mainly the inside of the arm, the claw, and the pivot). I had little to no foreknowledge of telescoping lifts going into this challenge so this would definitely use several more revisions before it hit production level but I'm happy with the results.

Brendan, awesome job with such a thorough design!

One comment that may be nit-picky, but thought it was worthy to mention because the principle can be applied in the future.

On your arm pivot, I foresee issues with holding tolerances in the last stage of your gear reduction. Currently, that Center-to-Center is dependent on tolerances in gearbox mounting to frame, top gusset mounting to frame, hole location in gusset, etc. Especially with what I assume will be significant loads in the arm pivot, you want to guarantee proper C-C to ensure longevity/avoid failure in that reduction.

My initial thought would be use the gearbox plates as the gusset on that side, so the 1/4 plate goes all the way to the vertex, and you ensure proper C-C.

Just a quick comment on tolerance stack up, but overall an awesome design! Best of luck this (real) build season!

-Mike

[BrendanB]

Brendan, awesome job with such a thorough design!

One comment that may be nit-picky, but thought it was worthy to mention because the principle can be applied in the future.

On your arm pivot, I foresee issues with holding tolerances in the last stage of your gear reduction. Currently, that Center-to-Center is dependent on tolerances in gearbox mounting to frame, top gusset mounting to frame, hole location in gusset, etc. Especially with what I assume will be significant loads in the arm pivot, you want to guarantee proper C-C to ensure longevity/avoid failure in that reduction.

My initial thought would be use the gearbox plates as the gusset on that side, so the 1/4 plate goes all the way to the vertex, and you ensure proper C-C.

Just a quick comment on tolerance stack up, but overall an awesome design! Best of luck this (real) build season!

-Mike

Thanks for the feedback Mike!

I see your point and agree. I can now see with my current setup using chains instead of gears for the final stage would have been a better choice as it would have been more forgiving. Using the gears and "splitting" the gearbox up was not smart. :rolleyes: My original design used chain but it really needed to have a strong tensioning system built in and figured gears would be a better choice but I didn't look at how that would change the approach.

[Pault]

Question for Andrew: Although I wanted to fully participate in this thing, I never really got the chance to do a lot of CAD work. However, I did spend a lot of time thinking of a design, and I am currently working on a simple CAD model to demonstrate my thoughts about the challenge to the community. It is just a sketch of a design, rather than an actual model ready for production, but do you still think that it would be worthwhile to submit it? I'm going to make it either way, just so that I can show people my design, but I'm not sure if it would count towards judging.

[Akash Rastogi]

Question for Andrew: Although I wanted to fully participate in this thing, I never really got the chance to do a lot of CAD work. However, I did spend a lot of time thinking of a design, and I am currently working on a simple CAD model to demonstrate my thoughts about the challenge to the community. It is just a sketch of a design, rather than an actual model ready for production, but do you still think that it would be worthwhile to submit it? I'm going to make it either way, just so that I can show people my design, but I'm not sure if it would count towards judging.

Submit either way.

[echin]

Here's a picture of my robot, and a STEP file of the entire thing.

Picture:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxrM5TU8rVcOTTRoQVBHYU9La1k/edit?usp=sharing

CAD:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxrM5TU8rVcOMFc5b3lNYzRveHM/edit

[Whippet]

I'm not sure I can really count this as an entry, since I have no clue how to get Blender to give me a good .step file, so here are some pictures of my design, along with a link to the blend file.

I designed this robot to be built on the resources budget of my team, which is hand tools, very limited machining sponsorship, a ton of VEX parts, and the welding class three hallways down. In practice, it would lift one human-fed crate at a time up and deposit it onto the shelf. It features:


Wide configuration Kitbot
4-CIM Drivetrain
Three-tiered electronics board
80/20 - based elevator
VEX rollers to deposit crate
Andymark Wormbox powering the lift
Machined container with sponsors' logos cut into the sides


The pictures are here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6psinnh4dvkfxqf/Rotated.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5vvruda923slek/Feeding.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mayt3fn18hnh6dt/Deposit.png

And the blend file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w5flfp92hs3smdj/BlockBarrage.blend

It has been a fun design season. I am excited to see what everyone else came up with!

[Pault]

Well, here is my design... concept (not much of a CAD, but whatever). Btw, some dimensions might change if I were to actually CAD the real thing for things like structural concerns.

http://i.imgur.com/863C159l.jpg

Here is my description from the email:

This robot picks up crates off the floor by aligning the corner of the crate in the v in the front of the robot. It then picks the crate up using one of the spring loaded claws designed to grab the corners of the indents in the crate. There are 3 of these claws attached to a pulley driven by 2 cims. Because the claws are spring loaded, they will expand outwards to clear the create wherever you see the ramps on the side of the tower. This happens twice: once to pick up the crate and one to drop it into the hopper. The hopper is designed to start inside the frame perimeter, but then immediately be extended outwards by window motor driven linear actuators (not shown) to a position where it can dump into the 1 point goal, and stay in that position. It can hold 3 crates. When the robot is full, it will drive up to the 1 point goal and release all the crates in the hopper, as well as any in the claws, by opening the window motor driven gates.

The reasoning for this design is that there is a limited number of crates in the feeding station. Especially with Ri3D probably screaming at low-resource teams not to attempt a floor, and giving them efficient feeder-loaded scorers. On the other hand, there are going to be so many crates on the ground it will be hard to drive (a good drivetrain consideration if I made one). So for a top tier robot, which is what I decided to create, floor loading is going to be a necessity. I also decided that because of the high capacity, it would be more efficient, and possible easier, to hold multiple crates and dump into the 1-point goal than place 1 crate at a time into the 2 point goal. Also, I figured that many teams are going to have a lot of trouble lining up square with crates, so I line up with the corners.

[echin]

I forgot to include my description/ game annalysis when I put my CAD up, so here it is. It is a bit long, but it's all bullet points.
Design features:
1. Funnels on each end of the robot to center crates
2. Pivoting telescoping arm
3. Claw attached to arm to pick up crates
4. Single speed swerve drive
5. Design abilities
6. Fits under overpass
7. Loads from the floor
8. Loads from the feed station
9. Places crates on the high shelf
10. Scores on the high shelf in auto
11. Loads from each side of the robot
12. Scores one crate at a time

Game Analysis
1. There are many more crates on the field than in the loading stations. A good team should be able to score all or almost all of the crates from the feeder station on the shelf if they can go under the overpass, and can score two crates per run. Because of this, relying solely on the feeder station is not a valid strategy since there are three teams on an alliance and even at one crate per run from each robot, the crates would run out.
2. The alliance crate is an extremely important game piece because a good team should be able to score around 100 points per match, so the alliance crate doubles that to 200.
3. The shelf scores twice as many points as the high tank, and if you can pick up off the floor, the necessary travel distance is the same for each.
4. A mechanism to put crates on the shelf is somewhat more complicated than a mechanism to dump in the tank.
5. Autonomous is much easier than it seems because the crates are scattered randomly around the field and if the robot goes straight across the field, it is likely to run into at least one crate, especially if it is going for the shelf. Using a funnel, it would be possible to collect at least one crate while going all the way across the field, and then pick it up and score it. It might be possible to score several crates in autonomous this way.

Swerve
1. Allows the robot to quickly maneuver to collect crates, and rotate to place the crates on the shelf while it is moving towards the shelf
2. Single speed
3. Dual plate design; one plate on top, one on the bottom plates made of steel to add counter weight
4. Quick disconnect wheel module; the wheel module comes off with one stop collar. The drive belt pulley and rotation sprocket stay in place when the caster is removed, allowing for fast and easy maintenance
5. Structural bumpers
6. Bumpers are made in two corners, and have a structural mount.
7. Mounting is done with a piece of 2x1 box tubing which is bolted to each plate
8. Mounts are made of steel to add counter weight

Also, thank you to all of the people who created this challenge. It kept me occupied for most of the month, and it was interesting to design an entire robot on my own whithout having much input from anyone else.

[echin]

I don't recall seeing the winning designs for this challenge anwhere. Does anyone know what they were?

[Andrew Lawrence]

The winners were privately contacted as we wished to honor the privacy concerns that many submitters asked of us. The main thing is many submissions used new designs that these teams applied to their 2014 robots, and I'm not sure if everyone is ready to share yet. If they would like to, the winners may come forward publicly anytime and share their designs.

That being said, almost every submission we received was amazing and unique in their own way, and all would have been powerful contenders in the game Block Barrage, had it been played.

[echin]

Thanks! I could see that, it was a great excuse to design new concepts, and there are a lot of similarities between our 2014 robot and my submission.

[Mason987]

So whats the likelihood of this occurring again this year? I wish I hadn't missed this last year.

[BrendanB]

So whats the likelihood of this occurring again this year? I wish I hadn't missed this last year.

Same! If there is some additional planning that needs to take place I'd love to help out with this!

I think it would be neat to kickstart this much sooner in the off-season so teams can use it for CAD practice or mock kickoff brainstorming. December is a little too late to make it a team activity.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I would love to see this come back next year if there's enough interest. Unfortunately I won't be able to run it like I did this year due to college starting, but if anyone else would like to take over the project, I'd love to hand it over to them and help out when I have time.

[Whippet]

I would be more than glad to create a game animation if this continues!

[NWChen]

Bump (sorry) for similarities between this and Recycle Rush.