The REAL chokehold of 2016

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Hello CD !

You probably remember my last thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145504) about cheesecake. Well my team decided not to use this strategy for our next regional, because it's just too much pressure. So here we are, making it public :yikes:

We were able to design a robot (see thumbnails) to completely block access to both low goals at the same time. We were looking at G25 -C
C. blocking GOAL(S) while in contact with its own BATTER using anything outside its FRAME PERIMETER except its BUMPERS

Both low goals now have a maximum opening of about 8". Pretty hard to force a boulder in there :rolleyes:

The chokehold, here, is to make any robot that has no high goal capacity literally unable to score. Any alliance that has no high goal shooter could not do anything else than breaching all game, and, as you should know, those points are very limited. The robot has 3 wheel kiwi drive, that allows it to go over the secret passage, and go sideways under the low bar to come back and capture.

We were able to build the robot in about half a day, using only a jigsaw and about 5 pounds of our withholding allowance for parts that required more complex machining. about 40ft of raw aluminum bars make the frame of the robot.
What do you guys think?

Edit: Bumpers as shown are not legal, we are working on iterating on CAD to make it work

[Christopher149]

Bumper rules are a pain, don't you know?

So, because the frame perimeter is convex, the two "bumpers" on the trailing edge of your "flying wing" aren't actually bumpers, and thus this is robot is not legal.

[Duncan Macdonald]

R19 makes this illegal... The front side frame perimeter needs 16" of bumper which would ruin the geometry.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

R19 makes this illegal... The front side frame perimeter needs 16" of bumper which would ruin the geometry.

Right, guess we did not think about that convex perimeter problem. We could probably iterate on those bumpers to mount them on the actual perimeter, but then they would enter the goals, which sounds illegal. The perimeter is only at like 113 inches like we built it, so there is still some room to get wider so the bumpers become legal ::rtm::

[Jaci]

Ahh yes, the good old "let's dedicate all our resources to absolutely cheesing the opponent alliance" strategy

[RonAyyyyyyyy]

Ahh yes, the good old "let's dedicate all our resources to absolutely cheesing the opponent alliance" strategy

I mean, this is a competition, and if this was legal it would completely neutralize low goal bots, giving them a big advantage

[anishde]

The issue is with this robot on an alliance, challenging and scaling become a pain for their alliance partners if possible at all.

[marshall]

This is very interesting...

[Sperkowsky]

If you could make this legal and you build a blocker on top this could be a really good 2nd pick.

[Ari423]

Won't the batter dividers get in the way of the wings? I don't remember how tall they are offhand, but I would think they are taller than the bottom of the highest allowable bumper.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Antoine,
If your design were a true triangle and had 8" of bumper on both sides of each of the three corners, it would meet that part of the bumper rules.

[nuclearnerd]

Or make the robot a triangle, and the wings could be flip-out extensions from the frame perimeter.

As a team with a dedicated low goal scorer, this thing is terrifying. I think it's perfectly legit though. Great job, and stay away from us :)

[g_sawchuk]

How many points would this strategy most likely block? We're seeing many games with 4-6 boulders scored into the low goal. Come championships, we will be seeing captures more frequently. So, let's assume that we have a situation where an alliance is capable of scoring 8 boulders in the low goal (we will question the validity of this later). Each low goal is worth 2 points, so that means that you are preventing a total of 16 points. So, this robot at what could fairly be considered it's "best case" can block 16 points. That doesn't quite merit a "chokehold" label.

However, it is a valid strategy. Until you add a high goaler to the mix. Let's take someone like 1241 for example, who has demonstrated the capability to shoot from just off the batter with a high level of accuracy. Let's presume that they are their alliance's captain, and can score 5 high goals each match. They have a 1st pick who can score the remaining goals required to receive a capture, meaning 3 low goals. Thus, in this scenario, you are denying the opposition a grand total of...6 points. Meanwhile, the alliance still scores 25 points. In the last 30 seconds (assuming that the robot leaves at 30 to get out of the courtyard before 20 seconds to avoid the risk of penalties), 1241 and their 1st pick can certainly score the remaining 3 boulders that were shut down by this proposed defender robot. You won't even deny the opposition a capture.

Look at more long-range-high-goal-capable robots: 2013, 2056, 118...if you're resting at the batter trying to block the low goals, they will have a complete field day scoring without a robot aggressively trying to hit them while lining up.
An important rule that nails this strategy into the grave is that you can only have one robot on defense in the courtyard at a time. It's much more valuable to have a fast drive train with a strong driver when playing defense. If you play defense on a low goal robot very effectively with a fast drive train, you can disrupt their cycle significantly. If the opposing alliance knows that they're up against this proposed "blocker bot", they won't even try low goal, saving them the time of getting shut down by a defender. However, if you put a fast drive train on defense, they're still going to attempt to low goal, and that's going to kill their time. Which benefits you a lot.

And this isn't even considering the fact that, as deemed above, the current design is illegal.
Quite simply, a fast drive train with a strong driver is the most effective form of defense we will most likely be seeing played in the courtyard in FRC Stronghold.

[notmattlythgoe]

Or make the robot a triangle, and the wings could be flip-out extensions from the frame perimeter.

As a team with a dedicated low goal scorer, this thing is terrifying. I think it's perfectly legit though. Great job, and stay away from us :)

It's terrifying until you hit one of the wings really really hard.

[Ari423]

Or make the robot a triangle, and the wings could be flip-out extensions from the frame perimeter.

As a team with a dedicated low goal scorer, this thing is terrifying. I think it's perfectly legit though. Great job, and stay away from us :)

You can't block the low goal using anything outside the frame perimeter, which is why he was trying to make the frame perimeter itself block both goals.

C. blocking GOAL(S) while in contact with its own BATTER using anything outside its FRAME PERIMETER except its BUMPERS

[nuclearnerd]

You can't block the low goal using anything outside the frame perimeter, which is why he was trying to make the frame perimeter itself block both goals.

Phew!

[JamesCH95]

Check R19 very carefully, specifically the example in the bottom right corner of Fig. 4-4. There is no such thing as a convex frame perimeter, by definition frame perimeters cannot be convex.

If you can make it work with this rule... well, that would be very interesting! As-is your robot example doesn't appear legal.

[nuclearnerd]

You could probably make this work without a convex bumper. You could make the robot a triangle, with two gaps in the "front" bumper. You park on the center batter, and when a robot approaches a low goal you rotate slightly to push the gap intake that corner of the tower.

Since you have to rotate to block, two offensive robots working together could slip a ball past you on the other side, but you would still reduce the number of goals significantly.

I love this effort though. Evolving strategies and robots keeps FRC interesting over the competition season.

[JamesBrown]

I see the model of it at the top of the ramp, but i'm having trouble seeing how the bumpers are going to make it over the Dividers on the batter.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Face it: there is no legitimate chokehold for this game. GDC has made it very clear that they don't want any teams breaking the basic game mechanics. From height restrictions, to no-touch zones, to defensive limitations, everything is very cut and dry.

And the one possible break, involving blocking the return passages, someone was smart enough (read: dumb enough) to ask GDC if it would be ok to break the game before they actually did so, to which GDC heavily disincentivized (G21).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Hello CD !

You probably remember my last thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145504) about cheesecake. Well my team decided not to use this strategy for our next regional, because it's just too much pressure. So here we are, making it public :yikes:

We were able to design a robot (see thumbnails) to completely block access to both low goals at the same time. We were looking at G25 -C


Both low goals now have a maximum opening of about 8". Pretty hard to force a boulder in there :rolleyes:

The chokehold, here, is to make any robot that has no high goal capacity literally unable to score. Any alliance that has no high goal shooter could not do anything else than breaching all game, and, as you should know, those points are very limited. The robot has 3 wheel kiwi drive, that allows it to go over the secret passage, and go sideways under the low bar to come back and capture.

We were able to build the robot in about half a day, using only a jigsaw and about 5 pounds of our withholding allowance for parts that required more complex machining. about 40ft of raw aluminum bars make the frame of the robot.
What do you guys think?

Edit: Bumpers as shown are not legal, we are working on iterating on CAD to make it work

B. coordinating a blockade of the FIELD with ALLIANCE members
G25B may be employed here as the robot is attempting to blockade the goals.

Also, if this strategy was used against me, I'd instruct my driver to pin the offending robot at 30 seconds left in the match and then back off, and when the offending robot chases me, pin it again ... since it can only drive in one direction to extract itself. This will allow 3 automatic scales as the alliance tries to take the batter.

G22 ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s) must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again. Pinning is transitory through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete

[JamesCH95]

How does this robot navigate the two barriers on the batter that separate the climbing/challenge zones?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

I see the model of it at the top of the ramp, but i'm having trouble seeing how the bumpers are going to make it over the Dividers on the batter.

bumpers at max height can clear the dividers by 0.5", like on our real robot. The "wings" just fly over the dividers

[ctt956]

To me, it doesn't look tall enough to reach over the batter dividers. Very interesting design though! If nothing else, this would probably make a good demo bot. :D

EDIT: I just saw this after posting.

bumpers at max height can clear the dividers by 0.5", like on our real robot. The "wings" just fly over the dividers

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

G25B may be employed here as the robot is attempting to blockade the goals.

Also, if this strategy was used against me, I'd instruct my driver to pin the offending robot at 30 seconds left in the match and then back off, and when the offending robot chases me, pin it again ... since it can only drive in one direction to extract itself. This will allow 3 automatic scales as the alliance tries to take the batter.

For the blockade, i remember seeing a Q&A about it requiring 2 robots blocking the field. So just one robot is not a blockade.

If you pin this robot at 30 seconds, with the sole strategy of making it give you scale points, then that would be pretty much against G11 anyways

[ratdude747]

If I'm honest, this design sounds like a good way to give the opponents automatic scales and captures.

I wouldn't classify this as cheesecake as it looks more akin to a new robot than a bolt-on mechanism.

[Ari423]

I wouldn't classify this as cheesecake as it looks more akin to a new robot than a bolt-on mechanism.

I'd call it cheesecake, but really bad cheesecake. Like the kind that has way too much cheese and not enough cake.

[ctt956]

I'd call it cheesecake, but really bad cheesecake. Like the kind that has way too much cheese and not enough cake.

So it should be called cake cheese or just cheese?

[Andrew Schreiber]

If I'm honest, this design sounds like a good way to give the opponents automatic scales and captures.

I wouldn't classify this as cheesecake as it looks more akin to a new robot than a bolt-on mechanism.

So Zebracorn cheesecake?[1]



[1] If Chicago can have it's own pizza[2] why can't Team 900 have their own cheesecake?

[2] Which I still hold is not real pizza [3]


[3] And I may be fine with people putting whatever they want ON their pizza I am NOT ok with people making their pizza that thick. It's an abomination!

[AmiableVariable]

Concerns about building this aside.
I would be worried giving something like this to an alliance partner who would be driving it for the first time in playoffs. There are not a lot of teams using holonomic drives, and kiwi drives MUCH differently from a standard kitbot, Rhino treads, or most other drive trains. As such, there would be a very high chance of getting stuck in the secret passage and lowbar, or racking up fouls for hitting someone in the outerworks, just in an attempt to get to the secret passage.
It is an interesting concept, but not reasonable to implement in between alliance selection and playoffs.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Concerns about building this aside.
I would be worried giving something like this to an alliance partner who would be driving it for the first time in playoffs. There are not a lot of teams using holonomic drives, and kiwi drives MUCH differently from a standard kitbot, Rhino treads, or most other drive trains. As such, there would be a very high chance of getting stuck in the secret passage and lowbar, or racking up fouls for hitting someone in the outerworks, just in an attempt to get to the secret passage.
It is an interesting concept, but not reasonable to implement in between alliance selection and playoffs.

This was also one of our main concerns. We asked someone on the team that has never driven before to give it a try. He took about a minute to get comfortable driving, which is pretty good. The thing is that the robot does not have to drive for most of the match, since it is just pressed up against the tower

[IKE]

So Zebracorn cheesecake?[1]



[1] If Chicago can have it's own pizza[2] why can't Team 900 have their own cheesecake?

[2] Which I still hold is not real pizza [3]


[3] And I may be fine with people putting whatever they want ON their pizza I am NOT ok with people making their pizza that thick. It's an abomination!

You certainly have odd tastes Mr Schreiber:

Suggests Zebracorn Cheesecake yet does not like Chicago style pizza*.


*Let's be honest, it is less about the thickness, and more about being required to hang out with other hungry humans for 45 minutes to an hour in order to get a pizza specially designed to require sharing... which hits 3 A. Schreiber pet peeves: people, waiting, sharing:p

[orangemoore]

So Zebracorn cheesecake?[1]



[1] If Chicago can have it's own pizza[2] why can't Team 900 have their own cheesecake?

[2] Which I still hold is not real pizza [3]


[3] And I may be fine with people putting whatever they want ON their pizza I am NOT ok with people making their pizza that thick. It's an abomination!

I invite you to come try our pizza in person. Maybe then you will be able to understand it better.

[GreyingJay]

So Zebracorn cheesecake?[1]


I think it only counts as Zebracorn Cheesecake if the receiving team builds it themselves.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I invite you to come try our pizza in person. Maybe then you will be able to understand it better.
While not something you have every night, you do have to experience the Lou Malnotti's butter crust just once to be amazed.

[Richard Wallace]

While not something you have every night, you do have to experience the Lou Malnotti's butter crust just once to be amazed.It has been too long since my last visit to the Midwest Regional.

[Ether]

by definition frame perimeters cannot be convex.

By definition, all robot frame perimeters are convex.

R2 blue box:

To determine the FRAME PERIMETER, wrap a piece of string around the ROBOT at the BUMPER ZONE described in R22. The string describes this polygon.

[rick.oliver]

I don't understand how this robot design and the strategy of stopping low goal scoring meets the definition of a Choke-hold.

A choke-hold strategy is one, when executed effectively, guarantees a win, regardless of what the opposition does.

[IronicDeadBird]

You blocked points from goals but can't you still get points from sweeping and puppy guarding the secret passage?

[Sperkowsky]

I don't understand how this robot design and the strategy of stopping low goal scoring meets the definition of a Choke-hold.

A choke-hold strategy is one, when executed effectively, guarantees a win, regardless of what the opposition does.

Actually the definition of choke hold is - absolute dominance or control

This strategy allows dominance over the low goal controlling the alliance into not scoring any.

It definitly could be debated whether this would be effective especially in elims but by definition this is a choke hold strategy.

[JamesCH95]

By definition, all robot frame perimeters are convex.

R2 blue box:

You are of course correct, I had been picturing concave in my head. My mistake.

[marshall]

By definition, all robot frame perimeters are convex.


LOL!!!!

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

It definitly could be debated whether this would be effective especially in elims but by definition this is a choke hold strategy.

At lower levels, the top seeded alliance is often formed by 2 fast low goal cyclers. I had GTCR in mind, when we lost in semis to 1511 and 2601, 2 low goal shooters, and where the top seed was 3683, with an incredibly fast cycler as well. I agree it's useless against teams that shoot high goal from anywhere else than the batter

[Sperkowsky]

At lower levels, the top seeded alliance is often formed by 2 fast low goal cyclers. I had GTCR in mind, when we lost in semis to 1511 and 2601, 2 low goal shooters, and where the top seed was 3683, with an incredibly fast cycler as well. I agree it's useless against teams that shoot high goal from anywhere else than the batter

Do not forget that was a week 1 competition. At this point most winning alliances score mostly high goals.

What scares me about something like this is, it is actually worse then a kitbot in a high goal scenario. This thing could not defend for the life of it and, it will end up wasting the single robot in the courtyard rule being I do not even think this thing could climb over the secret passage lip.

Its a cool idea but I do not see it being practical, or useful after further examination.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Do not forget that was a week 1 competition. At this point most winning alliances score mostly high goals.

What scares me about something like this is, it is actually worse then a kitbot in a high goal scenario. This thing could not defend for the life of it and, it will end up wasting the single robot in the courtyard rule being I do not even think this thing could climb over the secret passage lip.

Its a cool idea but I do not see it being practical, or useful after further examination.

we have a live prototype on our practice field. no problem going in/out of the secret passage. And yes, there is a few scenarios where a kitbot could do better, which is one of the reasons we will not be doing this :rolleyes:

[Roboshant]

This would also block High Goal batter shooters who need to be lined up completely against the tower.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

At some events this would have prevented every robot at the regional from scoring. First seed would be crazy not to pick this team first if no robots could do high goal. That being said, I think it's too late in the season for this robot to be effective.

[Citrus Dad]

Hello CD !

You probably remember my last thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145504) about cheesecake. Well my team decided not to use this strategy for our next regional, because it's just too much pressure. So here we are, making it public :yikes:

We were able to design a robot (see thumbnails) to completely block access to both low goals at the same time. We were looking at G25 -C


Both low goals now have a maximum opening of about 8". Pretty hard to force a boulder in there :rolleyes:

The chokehold, here, is to make any robot that has no high goal capacity literally unable to score. Any alliance that has no high goal shooter could not do anything else than breaching all game, and, as you should know, those points are very limited. The robot has 3 wheel kiwi drive, that allows it to go over the secret passage, and go sideways under the low bar to come back and capture.

We were able to build the robot in about half a day, using only a jigsaw and about 5 pounds of our withholding allowance for parts that required more complex machining. about 40ft of raw aluminum bars make the frame of the robot.
What do you guys think?

Edit: Bumpers as shown are not legal, we are working on iterating on CAD to make it work

If you built the robot arms to flop down and still be within 15" of the frame perimeter it might work. I can't tell your dimensions from the picture.

However, forget it being a "chokehold". In all of the high score games, almost all of the shots are high goal. They're easier and faster with vision tracking and even with "iron sighting." And the outerworks is a safe zone.

[jds2001]

I invite you to come try our pizza in person. Maybe then you will be able to understand it better.

I've tried your pizza in person. I still do not understand it.

-Jon, in NYC (where we have the only REAL pizza :p)

[GreyingJay]

I've tried your pizza in person. I still do not understand it.

-Jon, in NYC (where we have the only REAL pizza :p)

*shotsfired.gif*

[cadandcookies]

Face it: there is no legitimate chokehold for this game. GDC has made it very clear that they don't want any teams breaking the basic game mechanics. From height restrictions, to no-touch zones, to defensive limitations, everything is very cut and dry.

And the one possible break, involving blocking the return passages, someone was smart enough (read: dumb enough) to ask GDC if it would be ok to break the game before they actually did so, to which GDC heavily disincentivized (G21).

That's just quitter talk!

[EricH]

If you built the robot arms to flop down and still be within 15" of the frame perimeter it might work. I can't tell your dimensions from the picture.
G25-C, entire alliance gets a yellow card. Means that you get nothing from that design after your first match, and a number of the teams at the event get yellow cards they don't need.

[Cory]

This discussion seems kind of pointless. This robot is worthless (more precisely actively a detriment to the alliance) at champs, which I assume the intent is to get to.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I invite you to come try our pizza in person. Maybe then you will be able to understand it better.

This discussion seems kind of pointless. This robot is worthless (more precisely actively a detriment to the alliance) at champs, which I assume the intent is to get to.

To be fair, getting to and competing at CMP may have entirely different requirements depending on your region and week you are competing.

I would say that, at this point in the season, there are enough high goal shooters at most regionals for it to not be effective.

[Nate Laverdure]

By definition, all robot frame perimeters are convex.To observers standing outside the robot, yes. But when you stand inside the robot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_and_Concave), the frame perimeter is concave...

[dtengineering]

That is a creative idea... had you been able to solve the bumper issues and make a legal robot during build season, you'd likely have an interesting and unique defender.

From a cheesecake point of view however, I think you'd run into some build season rules.

R15 All ROBOT elements (including items intended for use during the competition in alternative configurations of the ROBOT), with the exception of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE per R18, BUMPERS, and COTS items, must be bagged and sealed, by 11:59PM local time on Stop Build Day, February 23, 2016

So maybe with the use of COTS parts and the withholding allowance and some work in the pits you'd be able to make it happen, however by altering the bumpers and movement systems you might also end up having a second robot which is disallowed under R1.

My apologies for being part of the "this won't work because" crowd... if the Wright brothers had listened to all the reasons they couldn't get off the ground, they would never have tried. But then again, they didn't have to meet an FRC rule book!

Love the idea!

Jason

[Ether]

To observers standing outside the robot, yes. But when you stand inside the robot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_and_Concave), the frame perimeter is concave...

Now, it's still convex, by definition:

[notmattlythgoe]

https://i.imgflip.com/11oxtu.jpg

[M217]

I've tried your pizza in person. I still do not understand it.

-Jon, in NYC (where we have the only REAL pizza :p)

Preach it, my man.

[IronicDeadBird]

Actually the definition of choke hold is - absolute dominance or control

This strategy allows dominance over the low goal controlling the alliance into not scoring any.

It definitly could be debated whether this would be effective especially in elims but by definition this is a choke hold strategy.

Has someone actually made a FRC dictionary of strategic terms that are used weirdly only in FRC

[Richard Wallace]

Has someone actually made a FRC dictionary of strategic terms that are used weirdly only in FRCMaybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago (http://www.simbotics.org/resources/robot-design/strategic-design):



The Chokehold Strategy

A strategy which, when executed, guarantees victory, independent of any action by your opponents
FIRST tries to design games with no reasonable chokehold strategy
If one exists, it will be very difficult to perform
Team 71, Beatty & Hammond, 2002

[Knufire]

https://i.imgflip.com/11oxtu.jpg

*applause*

[Sperkowsky]

Maybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago (http://www.simbotics.org/resources/robot-design/strategic-design):
Well, choke hold is a real phrase with a dictionary entry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choke%20hold

[Knufire]

Well, choke hold is a real phrase with a dictionary entry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choke%20hold

So what's more important: what the dictionary says or whatever everyone else understands the word to be?

*cue needlessly long CD debate about the meaning of the world chokehold*

[nuclearnerd]

*applause*

... Humbug. The margins of the rules are where real creative change can happen. A commercial firm would spend good money on a design which gave them a unique advantage in the market. This is healthy.

[Andrew Schreiber]

... Humbug. The margins of the rules are where real creative change can happen. A commercial firm would spend good money on a design which gave them a unique advantage in the market. This is healthy.

While I applaud the thought exercise, this design road of thought will likely not pay off over the rest of this season due to increasing numbers of high goal shooting robots. Effort would likely be better spent refining either the actual competing robot OR refining the process by which the no longer competing robot was designed to facilitate being more competitive.

[Citrus Dad]

Has someone actually made a FRC dictionary of strategic terms that are used weirdly only in FRC

This is the definition that shows up, but the key word here is "absolute".

absolute dominance or control <had a choke hold on the city's finances>

Blocking only the low goal doesn't make this absolute except in a special circumstance. It's easily defeated by high goal shooting.

[GeeTwo]

It's not a chokehold, as it does not prevent a breach, and there is a counter-strategy for the tower.

That said, a robot with a roughly 44"x15" frame perimeter COULD be made to block both low goals and high goal batter shooters, which would be useful as a "fourth robot" in CMP playoffs, when playing against alliances with those sorts of shooters.

A major weakness of the design as initially shown (and adjusted for bumper rules) would be that it could not challenge the tower or climb it in the same orientation it defends without blocking its alliance partners from their challenges or climbs. As such, it would be essential that a robot of this design be able to scale "sideways" (probably ending up with the frame perimeter in a vertical plane) or at least semi-scale so that it can be fully supported within one third of the tower.

Between the unusual frame perimeter and the requirement to scale, this would not be a cheesecake so much as a replacement robot that would have to be built during an event from almost entirely COTS parts.

Making a robot that could play this function from the carpet and defending with 15" extensions from the frame perimeter sounds like a serious problem in making the robot sufficiently robust for game play.

[jeremylee]

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

[JesseK]

Maybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago (http://www.simbotics.org/resources/robot-design/strategic-design):

A legitimate as-defined chokehold exists this year. It's just insanely hard to pull off as it requires a marvelous ballet of great robots and great inter-team communication since pursuing it also poses a reasonable risk of irrecoverably falling behind because something went wrong. It will definitely come out if the GDC ups the tower strength at champs. As we move into Weeks 5-7, I suspect we'll see small signs of it. I call it 'BB' for short.

[GeeTwo]

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

If you're giving up a robot to counter-defense, then the the defensive robot can play traditional defense against fewer offensive robots while neutralizing the parked robot. Still sounds like an advantage.

[anishde]

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

Is it really worth 1/3 of your alliance to sit stationary on the batter for an entire match? Much easier would be to keep the defender off the batter by brute force.
This design, while innovative, would make gameplay completely static and perhaps boring for the driving team. Each match starts in the neutral zone, over a defense once, onto the batter, and just sit the entire match after that. Alternatively, they're as likely to spend the entire match being pushed around by the offensive bots.

[rich2202]

IMHO, it won't help at Champs. At the Champs level, the better robots will be the accurate high goal shooters. Especially ones that can shoot from the Outer Works to avoid defensive robots. The extra points makes a difference.

[Chris is me]

Is it really worth 1/3 of your alliance to sit stationary on the batter for an entire match? Much easier would be to keep the defender off the batter by brute force.

Considering the other alliance has already devoted 1/3rd of their alliance to having no function other than to sit on your batter for the entire match, preventing them from doing so basically makes 1/3rd of their alliance completely useless. Particularly if they have the kiwi drive proposed in the OP and thus have trouble crossing most obstacles.

This design is a solution searching for a problem, and is very far from a chokehold even if it did work.

[jdunston94]

G25B may be employed here as the robot is attempting to blockade the goals.

Also, if this strategy was used against me, I'd instruct my driver to pin the offending robot at 30 seconds left in the match and then back off, and when the offending robot chases me, pin it again ... since it can only drive in one direction to extract itself. This will allow 3 automatic scales as the alliance tries to take the batter.

one small issue here... you yourself will not only receive G22 but also G11. please don't leave parts of the rules out to fit your argument the way you choose. you don't have to have contact to constitute a pin read the blue box for G22. By pinning someone in there own courtyard, yes what you would be doing is a pin, you would also be looking to get them the foul of contact in the last 20 seconds thus G11 could be called on you.

G22 ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be
considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s)
must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again.
Pinning is transitory through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon
retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete.
Violation: FOUL. For every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected, FOUL. If
extended and egregious, RED CARD
There is no FIRST Robotics Competition specific definition of pin, so a
general definition applies; “to prevent or stop something from moving.”
As a result, contact is not required for pinning to occur. For example, a
ROBOT parked right behind an opponent that is on the BATTER could
be considered pinning because the dividers on the BATTER and the
parked ROBOT prevent the opponent from moving.
Generally, pins that exceed fifteen (15) seconds are considered
extended and egregious, regardless of a pinning ROBOT’s mobility,
however circumstances vary and the assesment is open to REFEREE
discretion.

[XaulZan11]

you would also be looking to get them the foul of contact in the last 20 seconds thus G11 could be called on you.


The intent isn't to draw penalties, but to keep the opponent in your courtyard so they cannot get back on their batter for the capture in time. I'd be surprised if G11 was called in that situation unless it was overly obvious that you went out of your way to contact them.

[rich2202]

IMHO, given the 20 second rule, that is a nuance that will be lost on most refs.

[Joe Johnson]

So Zebracorn cheesecake?[1]



[1] If Chicago can have it's own pizza[2] why can't Team 900 have their own cheesecake?

[2] Which I still hold is not real pizza [3]


[3] And I may be fine with people putting whatever they want ON their pizza I am NOT ok with people making their pizza that thick. It's an abomination!


I'll accept Zebracorn Cheesecake without further comment but don't be hatin' on Chicago Style Pizza or I'm come after you.

Chicago Style Pizza is not just a thing, it is a thing near and dear to my heart.

Dr. Joe J.

[Richard Wallace]

I'll accept Zebracorn Cheesecake without further comment but don't be hatin' on Chicago Style Pizza or I'm come after you.

Chicago Style Pizza is not just a thing, it is a thing near and dear to my heart.

Dr. Joe J.Chicago style pizza is so deep and rich, you could sink a harpoon in it!

[Joe Johnson]

Would the attached robot be legal?

The frame parimeter is <120" and every external corner of the frame perimeter has at least 8" of bumper protecting it. Seems like it would be legal to me.

I can see adding 4 omniwheels, a battery and the rest of the electronics and doing tolerably well in St. Louis with such a robot. You could make this from completely COTS material (some plywood, some 2 by 4s, and some deck screws and that's about it) in the pits in St. Louis in about 2 hours tops, including the bumper but you could actually make the bumper before you arrive because bumpers don't have to go into the bag...

I am not saying this would be a world beater but I am saying that 20-30% of teams might do better on average with this robot than the one they currently are planning on using in St. Louis.

An interesting thought experiment on a sort of Zebracorn Self Cheesecaking concept.

Dr. Joe J.

[marshall]

Would the attached robot be legal?

The frame parimeter is <120" and every external corner of the frame perimeter has at least 8" of bumper protecting it. Seems like it would be legal to me.

I can see adding 4 omniwheels, a battery and the rest of the electronics and doing tolerably well in St. Louis with such a robot. You could make this from completely COTS material (some plywood, some 2 by 4s, and some deck screws and that's about it) in the pits in St. Louis in about 2 hours tops, including the bumper but you could actually make the bumper before you arrive because bumpers don't have to go into the bag...

I am not saying this would be a world beater but I am saying that 20-30% of teams might do better on average with this robot than the one they currently are planning on using in St. Louis.

An interesting thought experiment on a sort of Zebracorn Self Cheesecaking concept.

Dr. Joe J.

Fair warning to anyone attempting this, don't be caught with more than one object that resembles a robot built to play stronghold to a reasonably astute observer. A team is permitted to access but one such object at an event.

[Peyton Yeung]

Would the attached robot be legal?

The frame parimeter is <120" and every external corner of the frame perimeter has at least 8" of bumper protecting it. Seems like it would be legal to me.

I can see adding 4 omniwheels, a battery and the rest of the electronics and doing tolerably well in St. Louis with such a robot. You could make this from completely COTS material (some plywood, some 2 by 4s, and some deck screws and that's about it) in the pits in St. Louis in about 2 hours tops, including the bumper but you could actually make the bumper before you arrive because bumpers don't have to go into the bag...

I am not saying this would be a world beater but I am saying that 20-30% of teams might do better on average with this robot than the one they currently are planning on using in St. Louis.

An interesting thought experiment on a sort of Zebracorn Self Cheesecaking concept.

Dr. Joe J.

I'd like to see someone drive that either over a defense or over the secret passage way.

[matthewdenny]

Would the attached robot be legal?

The frame parimeter is <120" and every external corner of the frame perimeter has at least 8" of bumper protecting it. Seems like it would be legal to me.

I can see adding 4 omniwheels, a battery and the rest of the electronics and doing tolerably well in St. Louis with such a robot. You could make this from completely COTS material (some plywood, some 2 by 4s, and some deck screws and that's about it) in the pits in St. Louis in about 2 hours tops, including the bumper but you could actually make the bumper before you arrive because bumpers don't have to go into the bag...

I am not saying this would be a world beater but I am saying that 20-30% of teams might do better on average with this robot than the one they currently are planning on using in St. Louis.

An interesting thought experiment on a sort of Zebracorn Self Cheesecaking concept.

Dr. Joe J.


I see no reason why that configuration would be illegal. Of course how you use it involves a different set of rules.

[Cory]

I can see adding 4 omniwheels, a battery and the rest of the electronics and doing tolerably well in St. Louis with such a robot.

I am not saying this would be a world beater but I am saying that 20-30% of teams might do better on average with this robot than the one they currently are planning on using in St. Louis.

Dr. Joe J.

they might do better...but still be useless on an eliminations alliance.

[Joe Johnson]

they might do better...but still be useless on an eliminations alliance.

This is an interesting idea. But let's say I'm right, and that some 20% would do better with this robot. Who's to say that some of that 20% might not get a break here and a favorable ally there and BOOM DONE! all of a sudden they're a drafting team.

For that team, they probably wouldn't have been drafted at all and now they are not only playing after lunch, their an alliance captain. That seems like an upgrade to my kids' St. Louis Experience. I don't know how I'd tell my kids no if they wanted to give it a shot.

Dr. Joe J.

[GeeTwo]

I'd like to see someone drive that either over a defense or over the secret passage way.

The low bar and berms wouldn't be too big a problem; there's no need for the chassis to be that low to the floor. It would be best if the robot had a holonomic (or swerve) drive system so that it can drive along its short axis onto/off of its own batter and along its long axis to cross under the low bar and over the berms. I'd probably go (non equilateral) kiwi.

[notmattlythgoe]

The low bar and berms wouldn't be too big a problem; there's no need for the chassis to be that low to the floor. It would be best if the robot had a holonomic (or swerve) drive system so that it can drive along its short axis onto/off of its own batter and along its long axis to cross under the low bar and over the berms. I'd probably go (non equilateral) kiwi.

Oh man if only they had thought about that. Oh wait...

The robot has 3 wheel kiwi drive, that allows it to go over the secret passage, and go sideways under the low bar to come back and capture.

[ctt956]

...bumpers don't have to go into the bag...

I thought bumpers had to go into a separate bag?

[GeeTwo]

I thought bumpers had to go into a separate bag?

Bumpers are exempt from the witholding allowance. They may be put in the robot bag, or brought separately. There is no requirement that they be bagged, just properly constructed, cover 8" from every corner, and weigh no more than 20 pounds. Many teams (including 3946) bag or box the withholding allowance to simplify check-in, but that is not an actual requirement, either.

At an Event, Teams may have access to a WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE of FABRICATED ITEMS, not bagged per R15, to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE is a static set of items that shall not exceed 30 lbs. ...
.
.
.
Items exempt from this limit are:
A. the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
B. any ROBOT battery assemblies (as described in R5).
C. BUMPERS