FRC 71 2002 Marching technique [Archive]

View Full Version : FRC 71 2002 Marching technique

Roboshant

11-04-2016, 08:51

BigJ

11-04-2016, 08:59

The surface going on the carpet is file cards - the short straight prickly metal brush on the tool you use to clean a file. The metal teeth of the brush dug into the carpet, basically couldn't be moved while in, and had to be picked straight up. It used pairs of the file cards to walk/march down the field. This also means the robot couldn't really ever turn itself, which was one of the only weaknesses of the design. This file card drive is believed to be the reason for the "no metal contacting the carpet" rule.

Source: I know the guy who drove it ;)

Edit: If you mean what kind of linkages or how they produced the marching motion, I'm not sure, but I can probably get him on here to answer if noone else knows.

IKE

11-04-2016, 09:40

It works pretty similar to the treads of an elliptical exercise machine.

There is a swing link, a tread link, and a rotoray crank that raises, drives forward, lowers, pulls backwards. It is a very clever walker.

There are a handful other "4-bar" style mechanisms that can produce similar motion profiles.

marshall

11-04-2016, 10:49

This file card drive is believed to be the reason for the "no metal contacting the carpet" rule.

Ohh yes, rule 5.5.71.

#TeamsThatHaveHadRulesWrittenBecauseOfThem

Sperkowsky

11-04-2016, 10:52

Ohh yes, rule 5.5.71.

#TeamsThatHaveHadRulesWrittenBecauseOfThem

Hmm I wonder who's going to start that club.

Taylor

11-04-2016, 11:14

Hmm I wonder who's going to start that club.

There are several teams in that club. The don't flip robots rule is another (I don't remember the team but I believe they were from FL), as well as the robots can't start on top of each other rule (111). We claim partial responsibility for the cylindrical extrusions beyond frame perimeter rule.

Ari423

11-04-2016, 11:27

Hmm I wonder who's going to start that club.

We claim partial responsibility for the exception to R77-K (disallowing White Clippards). In 2014, we blew up 3 or 4 of them in one event by playing hard defense. A day or two later, the Team Update adds that exception to the rules. Coincidence? I think not.

PS- I know we aren't the only team that did that, but it's nice to know we were part of the reason that rule was written.

BigJ

11-04-2016, 11:32

We claim partial responsibility for the exception to R77-K (disallowing White Clippards). In 2014, we blew up 3 or 4 of them in one event by playing hard defense. A day or two later, the Team Update adds that exception to the rules. Coincidence? I think not.

PS- I know we aren't the only team that did that, but it's nice to know we were part of the reason that rule was written.

Some(?) of the white Clippards just had manufacturing defects. In 2013 one blew up in our pit at Midwest, even before getting anywhere near fully pressurized. A piece ricocheted off my shoulder clear down the pit isle 30-40 feet! That was a fun time helping the inspectors hunt down all the pieces so they could investigate and send the stuff back for analysis.

Amanda Morrison

11-04-2016, 13:29

I was watching this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuFlA3Pt4HQ&feature=player_detailpage&t=3624) video of team 71 Hammond in 2002 and noticed their marching mechanism. Does anyone know how this actually works, or what 71 used for this.

It works pretty similar to the treads of an elliptical exercise machine.

There is a swing link, a tread link, and a rotoray crank that raises, drives forward, lowers, pulls backwards. It is a very clever walker.

There are a handful other "4-bar" style mechanisms that can produce similar motion profiles.

A closeup of the walker feet in action is available via this video:

https://youtu.be/CuFlA3Pt4HQ?t=2175

Go a few minutes before that and you'll see the entire design process, including each of Team Hammond's iterations on the design. Also, a great sneak peek of the 2002 Zone Zeal Kickoff broadcast is available starting here, with bonus footage of Team Hammond's strategic process:

https://youtu.be/CuFlA3Pt4HQ?t=1624

(Yes, that is a VHS player. 2002 is longer ago than it feels, sometimes.)

Bonuses in this video: young Dave Verbrugge, announcer Ron Partridge, Woodie MCing matches, and Team 71's 2002 Chairman's Video (they were a bit different back then).

But most relevant to this thread, the inimitable and incredible Woodie Flowers Award winner, Mr. Bill, once again predicts the future: https://youtu.be/CuFlA3Pt4HQ?t=2014

:)

Peter Matteson

11-04-2016, 14:25

Hmm I wonder who's going to start that club.

177 Claims responsibility for Lexan shields in front of driver stations (1996 iirc) and the scoring object is part of the robot when under the robot's control (2001).

There are several others but I don't actively keep the list anymore.

EricH

11-04-2016, 19:38

There are several teams in that club. The don't flip robots rule is another (I don't remember the team but I believe they were from FL), as well as the robots can't start on top of each other rule (111). We claim partial responsibility for the cylindrical extrusions beyond frame perimeter rule.
Actually, RI for the no tipping. Sadly, no video exists...

71 has no intentional detatching of robot parts, as well as the no metal on carpet.

469 inspired several combinations of rules this year (their 2010 robot).

1519 clarified the whole meaning of robot...

BUMPERS are required due to wedged-robot interactions in '05--I know team 980 was involved in the probable catalyst. (It was quite funny to call them out during a presentation on this sort of thing, with them sitting there...)

The part about "restricting driver vision" comes from team 60, some years back.

Somebody turn me off, quick!

Mike Marandola

11-04-2016, 19:55

as well as the robots can't start on top of each other rule (111).

Is this a rule? 87 started on top of 816 at Seneca. There's no way the refs didn't see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjc3vKQcXQ

EricH

11-04-2016, 20:01

Is this a rule? 87 started on top of 816 at Seneca. There's no way the refs didn't see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLjc3vKQcXQ
They apparently removed that rule for this year. There is no requirement for robots to not be contacting other robots.

AllenGregoryIV

11-04-2016, 20:05

They apparently removed that rule for this year. There is no requirement for robots to not be contacting other robots.

Or to be touching the carpet. What was the plan in that match? I'm so confused.

Can a team build a very small "robot" (roboRIO, battery, bumpers, etc) and start on a partner, then all of their crossing count as two crossings? I don't think this is reasonable but it might be legal.

EricH

11-04-2016, 20:08

Or to be touching the carpet. What was the plan in that match? I'm so confused.

Can a team build a very small "robot" (roboRIO, battery, bumpers, etc) and start on a partner, then all of their crossing count as two crossings? I don't think this is reasonable but it might be legal.
Only if the top robot's bumpers actually go between the shields. If they don't go between the shields, no crossing.

Collin Fultz

11-04-2016, 20:31

But most relevant to this thread, the inimitable and incredible Woodie Flowers Award winner, Mr. Bill, once again predicts the future: https://youtu.be/CuFlA3Pt4HQ?t=2014

:)

Thanks for the videos, Amanda! Nice blast from the past.

In the 234 brainstorming that year, we were discussing how to best grab ONE goal and 234's lead mentor Scott Ritchie said, "Wait until you see Hammond with a robot walking down the field juggling all three goals." He was half right... :rolleyes:

simpsonboy77

11-04-2016, 21:32

[QUOTE=AllenGregoryIV;1571393]Or to be touching the carpet./QUOTE]

I was CSAing at that event, and it was later found out to be illegal as per G7.

When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH

FIRST said that on implies physically touching the carpet.

AllenGregoryIV

11-04-2016, 22:21

I was CSAing at that event, and it was later found out to be illegal as per G7.

When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH

FIRST said that on implies physically touching the carpet.

And they tell us not to lawyer the rules.

z_beeblebrox

11-04-2016, 23:09

We've changed withholding allowance rules thanks to this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127552).

ratdude747

11-04-2016, 23:31

Here's some other infamous "rule-making teams" that come to mind, both from 2014:

254/1114/others- Cheezy Vision (which was open-released for champs, IIRC used by a lot of teams) and whaterver the name of the kinect-based system used by 1114. For those who weren't in FIRST then, it was a system using a camera on the operator console (laptop integrated webcam or kinect) that could read subtle hand positions during autonomus (cheezy vision used hands on your belly) as a means of external control. The following year, this rule showed up:

G21 During AUTO, DRIVE TEAMS must not directly or indirectly interact with ROBOTS or OPERATOR CONSOLES.

VIOLATION: FOUL and YELLOW CARD

FIRST salutes the creative and innovative ways in which Teams have interacted with their ROBOTS during AUTO in previous seasons, making the AUTO period more of a hybrid period due to indirect interaction with the OPERATOR CONSOLE. The RECYCLE RUSH AUTO Period, however, is meant to be truly autonomous and ROBOT or OPERATOR CONSOLE interaction (such as through webcam or Kinect™) are prohibited.

Still, it was fun watching the autonomous duelling between 1114 (in the goalie zone) and 254 on Einstien finals in 2014. Battle of the hybrids.

1902- Batteries as ballast. This incident is already well documented on CD, and I'll summarize it briefly. 1902 was going to play defense in eliminations (#1 alliance) at the 2014 Orlando regional, and in order to help with weight distribution (presumably), they removed their manipulator and needed to add some ballast. Due to some reason (convenience?) they chose to use a 2nd battery for said weight, as it was technically legal if you read the rules a certain way. They were re-inspected, and went on to win both Qual matches. However, the #8 alliance had questions about using such ballast, and upon asking HQ they were controversially red carded retroactivley in both matches and eliminated from the eliminations. Once again, in the 2015 rules, this appeared:

R21 No batteries other than those allowed per R20 are allowed on the ROBOT, whether or not they are being used to supply power.

This means teams may not use additional batteries as extra weight on their ROBOTS, for example.

That rule is also in this year's manual, with IIRC the same wording.

thatnameistaken

11-04-2016, 23:47

Derailed thread is derailed, but this is a fun discussion.
What was the plan in that match? I'm so confused.

As someone who was there and talking with 87's driveteam before and after the match, the plan was for both of them to cross the rough terrain in auto. This was the only way that combination of robots could get all three crossings*. Unfortunately, however, 816 ended up having a broken gearbox; it's actually still unknown if they could've driven with 87's weight.

*IIRC. This was over three weeks ago.

BenHildy

12-04-2016, 12:19

BigJ

12-04-2016, 12:22

I'm very curious to see Wildstang's rule invention... When did this happen? What game? What purpose did starting on top of another robot serve? It all sounds so interesting!

If I remember correctly:

In 2007 the endgame was to elevate other robots off the floor, usually using platforms or ramps that robots would fold out and/or lift up.

In one match, 111 was with 2 robots that either weren't working properly or something similar... so they put one robot on top of the other in the starting zone (which is where you had to do the endgame), in order to get the bonus elevation points at the end of the match.

BenHildy

12-04-2016, 12:25

If I remember correctly:

In 2007 the endgame was to elevate other robots off the floor, usually using platforms or ramps that robots would fold out and/or lift up.

In one match, 111 was with 2 robots that either weren't working properly or something similar... so they put one robot on top of the other in the starting zone (which is where you had to do the endgame), in order to get the bonus elevation points at the end of the match.

Thanks! I'm going to try and find some footage. Also just discovered the beauty that was their 2004 robot. Truly amazing design.

XaulZan11

12-04-2016, 12:32

Thanks! I'm going to try and find some footage. Also just discovered the beauty that was their 2004 robot. Truly amazing design.

Here is video of that match: http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2007il_qm42

BenHildy

12-04-2016, 12:39

Here is video of that match: http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2007il_qm42

Thanks! Looks so strange. I wish I could've been in FRC in the "days before the rules" :D

Kellen Hill

12-04-2016, 12:42

And they tell us not to lawyer the rules.

I had the idea to "lawyer" that rule last year for can grabbing.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/PGaFdeleVk9Hc098tXK9f4kcT5V7ThmqgwrJzup_VPZ6IGUWUy HqhjwpARv2WDhGc-Dn_tFGfX0DP07i1KDyWEAJUn60vw7ZFXPUM5b0-bk5ZkoQSZVdvabvPtG96OO0RC0TzKxatUp9HIy4lZZsn8Kcpl3 LcX2KRx-DqSH37-8TygLLoORau2fKf3HDBbQP9Esl4tMLmF70AvsddnBpGSLQdgIy tnxuCAuff3AdDOXlT5J8ZwxXUBEhipL33Xgml6ny3qMV8ZNA6_ NhCRFD9yAPTLryYDkghMJVUYrBCDYLA_cpj5qRHg_p2dFEWmfq UbTP6hM_A6If0QMFhGc5zPz6ekm_sIZkKkiC6I72T3M0ehOWzc ZRoASNc1D-2FihWu7Hgr8PH8ufcBy5XYUmUbs8aKM0NP1XFXGA4QN4Gi3oNT iIfs783jJuelsC6mRYBlfv35Ydq8qh3DalXEavqWRD6qOBhhzJ XZto_a2Q90WxZpkFX4vlNXP7xgEY3jGwh3pJyqfZCRTbX4Ui8-jRfhouQE-MO4kfIGrwvuQD9ZaSHdCAOionbkQlcSkFtJ3CgzLu=w951-h305-no

When "placed" on the field a robot had to meet these requirements. But there is time between when a robot is placed on the field and when the match starts. Why not have a mechanism slowly lower to just over the can after it has been placed on the field? After my robot is "placed", I see no reason why it couldn't then reach into the Landfill Zone.

I tried a couple of times on Q&A to get them to define "placed", but they didn't bite. Pitched the idea to my brother and a few others but nobody ran with it. Probably a good idea. Still fun to think out of the box.

Breadbocks

12-04-2016, 20:13

Rules lawyering for last years game wasn't even sporting. If for whatever reason FIRST decides to have another game with 0 interaction between alliances, there's no chance it allows most of the shenanigans that went on. Leaving bits of your robot all over the field tied together with a string to make it legal....