New Off-season Defenses

[notmattlythgoe]

I have been informed that the portcullis will not be sent to off-season events due to safety concerns. I personally have no problem with this ruling and have put in an inquiry to see if the base can still be sent along.

We were already considering replacing the drawbridge and the sallyport with new defenses and now plan on coming up with something for the portcullis base also.

What ideas does the community have that could be used as an alternate defense (we already have a couple of ideas in mind). Keep in mind that you want to minimize the penalty to specific design choices.

[Bryan Herbst]

A group of Minnesota volunteers have discussed this a few times, and we came up with a few good alternatives (by some definition of "good").

My favorite practical option is propping up the cheval de friese as the CDF's "alternative", making a cliff defense. With the CDF, the challenge is getting on. With the cliff, the challenge is getting off. It's easy to implement, and not too significantly different from any existing defenses. Unfortunately it is significantly more directional than the existing defenses- going from the courtyard back to the neutral zone would be pretty hard.

Some less practical options (in descending order from most practical to least practical):

A "wall" you have to break through twice to defeat, such as two totes stacked on top of eachother
"Boiling pitch," which is just a bean bag chair that gets dropped on your robot after going through the defense
A cage with a bunny in it. Whether the bunny is real or fake is up to the planning committee.
A flat defense with nothing on it, but the head ref has a squirt gun and gives your robot a squirt every time you cross it
A second low bar, but connected to some propane to create an open flame instead of having flaps


Minnesota teams might want to be careful in the off season ;)

[CalTran]

http://i.imgur.com/NnmA1A3.jpg

[chmconkling]

A set of boulders that are attached to the flat base that you have to drive over.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I have been informed that the portcullis will not be sent to off-season events due to safety concerns.

Was this from HQ, Andymark, or someone else? I'm just wondering what off-seasons won't have the portcullis.

[EricH]

I was thinking a rolling-log type of defense. Should be quite entertaining to watch robots try to go over some round-ish material(s) that can spin in place but not roll off the platforms.

[FarmerJohn]

I've considered replacing several defenses with ones that don't block visibility, but the challenge is to design a new defense that the majority of robots can go over without needing new mechanisms or changing their drivetrain. If we can think of new defenses that fit that bill, it would be helpful to share to the community.

[notmattlythgoe]

Was this from HQ, Andymark, or someone else? I'm just wondering what off-seasons won't have the portcullis.

My mom's cousin heard from her friend who heard from her brother who heard from his barber who heard from his son that his teacher told him that his father's brother's sister's former roommate heard from Frank himself.

[Woolly]

An AM14U2 turned with its wheels perpendicular to the dividers on a low traction surface.

Additionally, pushing this field element on to the batter counts as a challenge.

[notmattlythgoe]

I've considered replacing several defenses with ones that don't block visibility, but the challenge is to design a new defense that the majority of robots can go over without needing new mechanisms or changing their drivetrain. If we can think of new defenses that fit that bill, it would be helpful to share to the community.

^This. The visibility blocking adds nothing positive to the game from a spectator or driver standpoint. This is why we're planning on scrapping the drawbridge and the sallyport.

[Ty Tremblay]

http://www.mariowiki.com/images/d/d4/LuigiCircuitWii3.png

[notmattlythgoe]

http://www.mariowiki.com/images/d/d4/LuigiCircuitWii3.png

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ty Tremblay again.

...

[CalTran]

I've considered replacing several defenses with ones that don't block visibility, but the challenge is to design a new defense that the majority of robots can go over without needing new mechanisms or changing their drivetrain. If we can think of new defenses that fit that bill, it would be helpful to share to the community.

^This. The visibility blocking adds nothing positive to the game from a spectator or driver standpoint. This is why we're planning on scrapping the drawbridge and the sallyport.

Though for the record, I've seen a few comments on various threads about replacing the "wooden" element with just clear plastic. While not a fan of the defenses (Scoring the crossings as a Ref was the worst.) because of the reduced visibility, I do think that they should stay for off season events because it rewards teams like 4678 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/b94/b944f5d6696701a096cc3568db893848_m.jpg) on their incredibly smooth operation of those defenses.

[JesseK]

Conveyor roller bridge of despair. PVC pipe around steel may work? Rough length the average wheel base at the event - probably something like 24-28". Peak height is close to the rock wall's height.

A rock wall made out of a roll of carpet that is allowed to deform over the course of a competition.

A quarter-height drawbridge with less spring force - most teams could probably add something to their CDF manipulators to solo this from the neutral zone.

2 punching bags or a few steel vertical pipes attached to a "high bar"

Rough terrain with 1" more variation in the height.

[Electronica1]

Could do astroturf, gravel (please don't use sand), or a turn table.

[NShep98]

http://i.imgur.com/NnmA1A3.jpg

As much as we'd love to cart Tim around to every off-season event, I think we'll have to pass. It was hard enough getting him to two event in two pieces. :yikes:

[notmattlythgoe]

Was this from HQ, Andymark, or someone else? I'm just wondering what off-seasons won't have the portcullis.

From Frank
the base of the defense will certainly be sent. The idea would be (for events that don't want to create a new defense, though I think that's a neat idea!) is that the 'Category A' defense would just be the CDF, so in that category, there would be no real option, the CDF would just be put on the field.

[rlowe61]

I was thinking a rolling-log type of defense. Should be quite entertaining to watch robots try to go over some round-ish material(s) that can spin in place but not roll off the platforms.

This would be an easy design. 4" dia steel pipe set center of defense plate, with 1"-4" underneath (make it adjustable (1" increments) so the head ref pulls a number out of a hat for each time it's used)(or make it perm to the field like the low bar and set the height to pneumatics so the FTC can change randomly during a match). The end of the pipe would have end caps with bearing in them for it to rotate on (make it more fun, have the bearings off center so it has a cam effect). :eek:

[EricH]

This would be an easy design. 4" dia steel pipe set center of defense plate, with 1"-4" underneath (make it adjustable (1" increments) so the head ref pulls a number out of a hat for each time it's used). The end of the pipe would have end caps with bearing in them for it to rotate on (make it more fun, have the bearings off center so it has a cam effect). :eek:
Or a series of smaller pipes, same general idea. Oughtta be quite "entertaining" (and maybe claim a few robots on the way...)

[Kevin Leonard]

A set of boulders that are attached to the flat base that you have to drive over.

Boulders cut in half, then affixed flat-side-down to a base.
The platform without installing a defense (with no attachment, so that there's a lowered portion)
A big ramp to launch yourself into the courtyard, but almost impossible to cross backwards
A 2012 Bridge
a 2010 bump
A series of bungee cords strung across the base very close together
a Lunacy trailer you can push onto the batter that can replace a robot for the challenge requirement (or a tote or some other item to push onto the batter and can start on top of a defense platform)
A tall bar that can be hung from as a replacement for the hanging endgame
rolling bars
Just a platform, no defense on it, but you need to clear the other 4 defenses in order to get the breach
A bunch of 2013 frisbees
ACTUAL FIRE

[jodge1706]

Just a platform, no defense on it, but you need to clear the other 4 defenses in order to get the breach


In the midst of craziness and rambling, here's an actual good idea

[AllenGregoryIV]

In the midst of craziness and rambling, here's an actual good idea

I think this would be a difficult change for FMS. Unless you just didn't get any points at all for crossing this defense in auto or teleop.

[EricH]

I think this would be a difficult change for FMS. Unless you just didn't get any points at all for crossing this defense in auto or teleop.
Wouldn't be all that hard, just gotta train the refs that if that defense was in play, it doesn't get entered as a crossing.

Of course, offseason events like to make up their own rules...

[Brian Sherman]

MAR will also not be providing the portcullis to off-season events. If anyone (or group) wants to design and build a replacement defense, we have a few bases available.

PM or email me.

[jodge1706]

I think this would be a difficult change for FMS. Unless you just didn't get any points at all for crossing this defense in auto or teleop.

Why don't we do that? It will still allow robots designed solely for crossing defenses would still be able to cross, and it would make it easier for robots designed to shoot to do that. If anything, it think it would make the game more exciting, more high scoring shots.

[Bryan Herbst]

I wouldn't put nothing in the base- the holes in the platform for the defenses' wheels would be problematic for robot wheels.

A flat defense that you put in the slot with the mentioned rule change would certainly be interesting.

[CalTran]

I wouldn't put nothing in the base- the holes in the platform for the defenses' wheels would be problematic for robot wheels.

A flat defense that you put in the slot with the mentioned rule change would certainly be interesting.

"Why would they select to put nothing in the defense position? What is the other alliance playing at?? :confused:"


The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.

[EricH]

Ok, I know we were talking about the portcullis, but I have an idea to replace the drawbridge visibility issues. For both the sallyport and drawbridge, replace the wooden part with clear lexan, but insert a low bar sized cutout (with a few inches on each side) that robots can drive through. In order to make it more difficult than the traditional lowbar, doing the portcullis/sallyport the "proper way" (ie. without just driving through the cutout) earns one more defense crossing than it would normally (ie. proper earns both for the breach or 2 of the 3 if one more crossing is added to the rules).
Somebody pulls that, we'll have too big of an advantage. Fully damaged drawbridge/sally port in auto or something like that. Rewards very few of the teams for putting in a lot of hard work, penalizes the rest of 'em.

[maxnz]

Or the new pseudo low bar crossing adds one to your tower score.

You mean that they cross it like they would cross a drawbridge, right?

[maxnz]

The sally port and drawbridge will both have a slot cut out of them at the bottom, 14" high and with a few inches on each side. A team that crosses them without using these cutouts will receive one of the following (depending on which one the event organizer feels is the most balanced);

1. An extra defense crossing.
2. An extra (5?) number of points for their crossing.

Another option instead of rewarding the proper way is to penalize the new way by;

1. Making the crossing worth no points AND/OR;
2. Adding one to your tower strength.

That's answers my question. I just wanted to know if the defense being crossed like a drawbridge or a sally port (I didn't realize initially that the sally port was included) caused the special points/tower increase/etc. to occur. Thanks.

[TheNerdJedi]

How about a simple ramp to jump over?

EDIT: Was already mentioned by Kevin!

[MARS_James]

If anyone from Florida(or any other area) is reading this and won't be making a fun unique defense to replace the Portcullis please don't just make it Cheval always as that leaves teams with only 2 defenses to pick for 3/4 of their matches (Lowbar, Cheval, Audience, and then what ever two are left) instead allow them to pick the Cheval or the other member of Category B or D they did not pick. It would make it so Field reset and defense coordinator has more work (Basically the defense coordinator selects the portcullis then has to write B or D under it to signal which other defense goes there, and field reset has to remember which two defenses belong in B and D) but at least teams will still have control of 3/5 of the defenses like we were told in the rules.

Now things that i think would be interesting for teams to decide to do:

• The Cliff (cheval stuck in the down.)
• A Breakaway Style (in shape not size) barrier: link for the young people (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iheq7yar5c4/hqdefault.jpg)
• A Chute Door
• Weighted High Bar (Create a tall low bar but attach pipes to the bottoms of the flaps like what were on the original low bar)

basically I want to keep the integrity of the portcullis in tact, since many tall bots were able to go through it in both teleop and auto and I don't want to further penalize them for their design decision. (Turning a 1/9 defenses impossible to cross to a 2/9 is not fair to them)

[hectorcastillo]

How about a stack of six totes with a can and a noodle on top sitting on a defense platform???

[Hitchhiker 42]

How about a stack of six totes with a can and a noodle on top sitting on a defense platform???

Oh man, 2003 all over again.

[pmangels17]

What about just continuing the slope of the platform to create what would have a triangular cross section. Satisfies the Breakaway Brigade who want a giant hump/ramp, and also satisfies the Cliff Contingent who wants a ramp that robots can Dukes of Hazard over with incredible air, but with the added effect that you can cross it both ways. It should be dead simple to built too. FOr added fun, add rollers onto the ramp sides embedded into the ramp such that the only way to cross is to go really fast and fly so high you crash into the castle before you hit the ground.

[hectorcastillo]

FOr added fun, add rollers onto the ramp sides embedded into the ramp such that the only way to cross is to go really fast and fly so high you crash into the castle before you hit the ground.

Rule change: Robots must now score themselves into the high goals at the end of a match in order to achieve a capture.

[ctt956]

1. Pit similar to the moat but maybe a bit deeper filled with corn, water, boiling tar, red or blue alliance flavored dessert related substance, mangoes, or mango flavored desert related substance
2. Pool noodles; could be arranged in a lot of creative ways or another spongy material that robots would sink into. Very high pile carpet might also work.
3. Bridge of Death
4. Spike Trap
5. Lunacy Regolith or another slippery surface; put it on a ramp for more fun
6. A spring-loaded or pneumatic ejector platform that launches robots in a random direction
7. Actual chili fries, or fries to be shoveled(Though I'm sure all robots like their fries unsalted, so be sure to leave out the salt)
8. A RUNNING bench grinder
9. Something like the rough terrain, but with the bumps on springs so they move up and down
10. A trapdoor that robots fall through

[Roger]

Was this from HQ, Andymark, or someone else? I'm just wondering what off-seasons won't have the portcullis.Portcullis suddenly discovered to have ouchies (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43798?).

[Koko Ed]

A pit of grinded corn cob husks.

[Travis Hoffman]

Very high pile carpet might also work.


I was thinking pink shag carpet and beaded curtains.

[carpedav000]

I call this one the mega moat:

Same as the moat, but the bumps are the size of the rock wall instead :yikes:

[maxnz]

1. Pit similar to the moat but maybe a bit deeper filled with corn...

1992!

[sanddrag]

Portcullis suddenly discovered to have ouchies.

Photo later when it gets approved.I'm confused. Something that was used all season is now all of a sudden dangerous? I don't get it. What's the issue with it?

[notmattlythgoe]

I'm confused. Something that was used all season is now all of a sudden dangerous? I don't get it. What's the issue with it?

I heard that someone had 2 of their fingers broken while setting it up.

[maxnz]

Rule change: Robots must now score themselves into the high goals at the end of a match in order to achieve a capture.

Suggestion: they have to score a minibot.

[scaryone]

We are considering having all teams vote prior to the event, and have static defenses (not changing throughout event). Lots easier on volunteers.

[Storcky]

See http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43664

[mrmummert]

Just had this idea....some sort of swinging bridge...similar to a rope bridge.
basically a suspended platform the size of a defense bottom about a inch or so high off the defense base. each corner would have a rope (or chain) attached to a post holding the this up. As you drive across it could swing back and forth. If a robot sat on it then took off the base would tend to swing out from under the robot. Driving onto it too fast would make it difficult to drive across.

[Chris is me]

Any newly created defense is not fair to teams that designed around the very specific defense arrangements on the field. Sure, it's "not fair" that other defenses will be removed too, but removing a game element is a lot less of a penalty than adding one that not everyone can cross.

Honestly, they should just make off season defenses static. CDF, Rock Wall, Ramparts, Moat. CDF in 2 to block the human player, yet Moat in 5 and Rock Wall in 3 to allow skilled HPs something to try. Terrain defenses in 3 and 4 for auton. Skipping Sally port and Drawbridge for visibility reasons, and skipping Rough Terrain because it's easy and we're out of room. This will save tons of time and congestion for field reset, reduce load on volunteers, increase defense robustness (you can bolt down defenses instead of pinning them) and generally make things smoother. I will miss the strategic depth of defense selection (and trust me, there was some) but I think ultimately it's worth it for a better event without disadvantaging certain teams.

[carpedav000]

-A normal defense base... Covered in rollers
-A running treadmill (running towards the neutral zone)
-The black knight
-Car tires
-A pit full of mutton legs

[Roger]

Stickers were put on (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/43798?) at World Champs.

Granted the Portcullis is probably one of the more hazardous game elements in recent years, but the stickers were a little -- bizarre. No one is supposed to be on it anyway. I'm surprised there weren't more stickers on it saying "Danger - Tipping Hazard".

Having static defenses would be kind of dull. Most of them weren't a problem moving in and out of the bases, except like the Rock Wall or Ramparts which got banged out of position by the robots and the pins wouldn't come out. My crew at UMass Dartmouth were running ahead 30 minutes. The reset crew at the NE Champs were dancing even after 3 days of resetting.

[notmattlythgoe]

Any newly created defense is not fair to teams that designed around the very specific defense arrangements on the field. Sure, it's "not fair" that other defenses will be removed too, but removing a game element is a lot less of a penalty than adding one that not everyone can cross.

Honestly, they should just make off season defenses static. CDF, Rock Wall, Ramparts, Moat. CDF in 2 to block the human player, yet Moat in 5 and Rock Wall in 3 to allow skilled HPs something to try. Terrain defenses in 3 and 4 for auton. Skipping Sally port and Drawbridge for visibility reasons, and skipping Rough Terrain because it's easy and we're out of room. This will save tons of time and congestion for field reset, reduce load on volunteers, increase defense robustness (you can bolt down defenses instead of pinning them) and generally make things smoother. I will miss the strategic depth of defense selection (and trust me, there was some) but I think ultimately it's worth it for a better event without disadvantaging certain teams.

I don't know that creating new defenses is any more or less fair than choosing a set of defense to use permanently. We're specifically choosing defenses that should be crossable by all drive trains.

[PayneTrain]

Any newly created defense is not fair to teams that designed around the very specific defense arrangements on the field. Sure, it's "not fair" that other defenses will be removed too, but removing a game element is a lot less of a penalty than adding one that not everyone can cross.

Honestly, they should just make off season defenses static. CDF, Rock Wall, Ramparts, Moat. CDF in 2 to block the human player, yet Moat in 5 and Rock Wall in 3 to allow skilled HPs something to try. Terrain defenses in 3 and 4 for auton. Skipping Sally port and Drawbridge for visibility reasons, and skipping Rough Terrain because it's easy and we're out of room. This will save tons of time and congestion for field reset, reduce load on volunteers, increase defense robustness (you can bolt down defenses instead of pinning them) and generally make things smoother. I will miss the strategic depth of defense selection (and trust me, there was some) but I think ultimately it's worth it for a better event without disadvantaging certain teams.

You can make something that is easy, fun, and/or weird. For instance, I don't think putting a short stack of gray totes or an Aerial Assist ball sitting on a ring on the portcullis base for teams to bulldoze through is particularly difficult to execute in construction or requires any significant change to an existing Stronghold robot, but could make play more interesting/wacky for an offseason.

[scott.smith]

CDF, Rock Wall, Ramparts, Moat. CDF in 2 to block the human player, yet Moat in 5 and Rock Wall in 3 to allow skilled HPs something to try.

You would think that the CDF would block the human player, however, our human player actually was able to bowl over it, without any robot assistance. No matter how you try to stop the human players, they will always find ways around it.

That said, I think that it is already hard enough to to bowl it over the rock wall, ramparts, or moat, so you don't need to make it even harder. It would decrease the value of the human player, and make all but the best human players much less valuable. Then again, after much practice, it might become more common for HPs to bowl it over spots 3,4, and 5. Also, your idea would be great for field reset times.

[Kevin Leonard]

I think static defenses at a lot of smaller off-seasons makes a ton of sense. Get more matches into one day by lowering field reset times and require less volunteers.

However I still want to see changing defenses at IRI, Chezy Champs, and other similarly competitive and/or long off-seasons.

[Shrub]

Make the new defense another robot. Alternately, two smaller robots.

[Refresh]

I call this one the mega moat:

Same as the moat, but the bumps are the size of the rock wall instead :yikes:

Not the cliffs of Insanity!!!

[pmangels17]

Any newly created defense is not fair to teams that designed around the very specific defense arrangements on the field. Sure, it's "not fair" that other defenses will be removed too, but removing a game element is a lot less of a penalty than adding one that not everyone can cross.


Potentially, yes this could disadvantage teams, but by adding a defense that could be pretty easily traversed by most drivetrains in FRC this year, I would wager that for the most part it would be a non-issue. Plus, it's the offseason, which is the perfect time to try out fun stuff like this without hurting anyone's chances at winning a blue banner. I think it'd be really fun to see something like what a lot of people have proposed. The defenses could still be static if that makes things easier on field crews, but the added twist might be pretty cool.

[Conor Ryan]

A MOAT WITH ACTUAL WATER.

[Anthony Galea]

That said, I think that it is already hard enough to to bowl it over the rock wall, ramparts, or moat, so you don't need to make it even harder. It would decrease the value of the human player, and make all but the best human players much less valuable. Then again, after much practice, it might become more common for HPs to bowl it over spots 3,4, and 5. Also, your idea would be great for field reset times.

Sometimes, teams are too good at it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp3MuMCXg2w)

Now, I'm not saying that its not hard. In fact, its incredibly hard. However, I feel like people would want to minimize the influence of human players, as this is a robotics competition, not a human player competition.

[Twepeler]

A spike pit. But the spikes are made of rubber so the won't actually puncture a robots wheels but it acts sort of like a second rough terrain by having different heights for the spikes.

[janette38]

The rolling log is good, but absolutely NO on the live bunny? (Huh???) It would be absolutely TERRIFIED of all the robots and noise.

[The other Gabe]

3. Bridge of Death


You must ask these questions 3!

[Eric Scheuing]

You can make something that is easy, fun, and/or weird. For instance, I don't think putting a short stack of gray totes or an Aerial Assist ball sitting on a ring on the portcullis base for teams to bulldoze through is particularly difficult to execute in construction or requires any significant change to an existing Stronghold robot, but could make play more interesting/wacky for an offseason.

Bonus points if the defense is damaged and the game pieces end up back in their starting location (or close enough to it) at the end of the match!

[pwnageNick]

I suppose coming up with a new defense to replace the Portcullis makes sense if FIRST will not be sending it with the field. Personally I think just always having the CDF out would be fine, but I could convince myself that having a new one would be good.

I do not however understand any logic behind trying to replace the Sallyport, Drawbridge, or any other defense.

For one this devalues any robots who actually designed around these challenges. It also removes a challenge that teams may feel like adding something small to their robot to in the offseason to try.

If you want to add a new defense, I'm not sure in what way that new defense would be effective. There would be two ways to approach it: either something that almost all robots would be able to accomplish with their current designs, or something challenging that teams would have to engineer their robots further to accomplish. Either option is poor; if you make something that almost everyone can accomplish with their current robot, then why even bother creating it or replacing any of the current defenses in the first place. If you make a challenging one, you are forcing teams to build something new to damage it, which most offseason events tend to want to avoid. Also, if you're replacing the drawbridge or sallyport, those are already 2 defenses that most teams were never able to do this season, so replacing them with something challenging that requires a new mechanism is pointless when the team could deisgn a new mechanism for those defenses they chose not to do during the regular season.

Sorry this post got away from me a bit and I rambled, I'm still recovering from my VEX/FIRST Champs illness. Bottom line, I'd say just leave the defenses alone (physically). Now if you wanted to change the breach requirement to needing to damage all 5, then I might be interested...

[Pauline Tasci]

I mean we can just make teams use the team versions since its way more safe.

[MoistRobot]

A half-pipe could prove interesting to mount and traverse.

[Nate Laverdure]

Loop-the-loop. Takes up 2 defense slots.

[notmattlythgoe]

Loop-the-loop. Takes up 2 defense slots.

This is happening.

[JesseK]

This is happening.

Dunno why, 836 is the only robot fast enough to do it...

[Crew Cox]

Pull up bar for all those fast hangers out there........
HI mom!!

[carpedav000]

Dunno why, 836 is the only robot fast enough to do it...

We might be fast enough ;)

[ctt956]

There would be two ways to approach it: either something that almost all robots would be able to accomplish with their current designs, or something challenging that teams would have to engineer their robots further to accomplish. Either option is poor...

Maybe make something in between the two, so some robots can already cross it easily, while others would only need small changes. There could be different defenses depending on what teams competing at each offseason event are capable of.

I mean we can just make teams use the team versions since its way more safe.

Yes, team versions of the portcullis would be much safer(most likely), but durability would be an issue. I've seen wooden ones break very quickly with little robot use.

Potentially, yes this could disadvantage teams, but by adding a defense that could be pretty easily traversed by most drivetrains in FRC this year, I would wager that for the most part it would be a non-issue. Plus, it's the offseason, which is the perfect time to try out fun stuff like this without hurting anyone's chances at winning a blue banner. I think it'd be really fun to see something like what a lot of people have proposed. The defenses could still be static if that makes things easier on field crews, but the added twist might be pretty cool.

Agreed. That's part of what the offseason is for IMO; trying things you didn't get to try during the regular season.

[Koko Ed]

I heard that someone had 2 of their fingers broken while setting it up.

That was the Newton Field Supervisor in week five. He had to have a surgical procedure done to fix it.

[wesbass23]

Forgive me if this has already been suggested but the replacement could be whatever defense is not being used from the current audience selected category. That way it is a defense that already exists and everyone can plan for. Downside is I can't really see anyone not choosing the CDF unless the sallyport or drawbridge was the other option.

[maxnz]

Bonus points if the defense is damaged and the game pieces end up back in their starting location (or close enough to it) at the end of the match!

Throwback to 2008!

Seriously, I've seen so many throwbacks to previous years (1992, 2003/2015, 2008, 2010, 2014 and probably more) in this thread.

[Koko Ed]

Maybe we can just borrow this thing (https://www.facebook.com/SawBlazeBattlebots/videos/997903933630270/) and use it as a fire breathing dragon.

[Gravity]

I really like the "spinning log" idea. What if it was just a bunch of wheels on an axle?

Another idea is to have a triangular prism so that it is slightly harder to traverse than the rock wall.

[ctt956]

Maybe we can just borrow this thing (https://www.facebook.com/SawBlazeBattlebots/videos/997903933630270/) and use it as a fire breathing dragon.

Yes, but the flame is Fluorescent Green rather than Green...

[themccannman]

That was the Newton Field Supervisor in week five. He had to have a surgical procedure done to fix it.

That wasn't the only casualty, one of 1678's alumni/mentors also broke two of her fingers setting it up at the Sacramento regional.

[EricH]

I mean we can just make teams use the team versions since its way more safe.
Also harder to open. (And, we only broke both sets of drop panels on both days at the Scrimmage...)

And the team versions don't play well with the full field.



What I would suggest would be something that can work with the same general type of motion as the defense that is being replaced. So, replace Portcullis with a drop-door of some form, rigged to open into the Neutral Zone... Maybe.

[troy_dietz]

What I would suggest would be something that can work with the same general type of motion as the defense that is being replaced.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I skimmed thought some of the more plausible ideas.
Ideally, the portcullis would simply be replaced with a safer version of itself as to not disadvantage teams that specially built mechanisms for crossing that particular defense.
Don't get me wrong, some of these new ideas are really cool, but they may upset teams that are suddenly unable to cross a one less defense than they could during regular competition.
Many portcullis and cheval de frise manipulators are two articulated wedges that simply push up the gate as the robot crosses.

While I recognize that this thread was not limited to replacements for the portcullis, it would likely create the most problems of any of the defenses if it was removed. (seeing that the drawbridge was almost never played in the higher level of competition, and the sally port can easily be breached using the spin maneuver.)

[Alan Anderson]

I do not however understand any logic behind trying to replace the Sallyport, Drawbridge, or any other defense.

Many drivers would like to see the Drawbridge and Sally Port gone (or changed) because they are large and impossible to see through.

[notmattlythgoe]

Many drivers would like to see the Drawbridge and Sally Port gone (or changed) because they are large and impossible to see through.

This. In my opinion as a spectator the decreased visibility to drivers added no value to the game.

[Lil' Lavery]

The lower bar ;)

[Mr. Tatorscout]

https://giphy.com/gifs/star-lego-logs-9TuMAqF9MUkq4

Timing is everything!

[Doug Frisk]

I emailed Mark Lawrence yesterday a suggestion that the new defense be a 12 foot length of heavy chain encased in a vinyl tube suspended across the platform with the center of the loop 5 inches above the bottom platform.

It provides a challenge that is similar to the portcullis in that you have to lift the chain up and over the robot, but is easier in that it swings out of the way and harder in that the chain can catch on the robot as it passes under.

The vinyl/plastic cover is of course to prevent the chain from completing a circuit as it drags over your robot.

[Hitchhiker 42]

I like the idea of a rolling log in the middle. Challenging, but not too.

[Chris is me]

I emailed Mark Lawrence yesterday a suggestion that the new defense be a 12 foot length of heavy chain encased in a vinyl tube suspended across the platform with the center of the loop 5 inches above the bottom platform.

It provides a challenge that is similar to the portcullis in that you have to lift the chain up and over the robot, but is easier in that it swings out of the way and harder in that the chain can catch on the robot as it passes under.

The vinyl/plastic cover is of course to prevent the chain from completing a circuit as it drags over your robot.

The difficult thing here is - tall robots could go under the portcullis, but how can tall robots go under this?

[Doug Frisk]

The difficult thing here is - tall robots could go under the portcullis, but how can tall robots go under this?

In exactly the same way. A 12 foot loop of chain can be raised well above 4' 6", it isn't as simple, but should still be quite possible.

[Karibou]

In exactly the same way. A 12 foot loop of chain can be raised well above 4' 6", it isn't as simple, but should still be quite possible.

Many tall (and short) robots relied on the motion of the portcullis to get through it. One push (or ramming into it a few times, in some cases) would send it flying high, and they could quickly get through it before it came crashing down.

[Doug Frisk]

Many tall (and short) robots relied on the motion of the portcullis to get through it. One push (or ramming into it a few times, in some cases) would send it flying high, and they could quickly get through it before it came crashing down.

The Portcullis is gone. I offered up a manipulation defense that it functionally similar to the portcullis. What do you suggest? What are you willing to build in your garage to bring to off season events?

[CalTran]

The Portcullis is gone. I offered up a manipulation defense that it functionally similar to the portcullis. What do you suggest? What are you willing to build in your garage to bring to off season events?
Let's tone it back a little.

While I do like your chain idea and think it would have made an interesting defense, the reason people are a little skeptical is because while similar, the chain would act vstly different than the Port. Most Port manipulators were also built with the bottom of the "door" being a solid bar. Ideally, any replacement defenses are actuated similarly to existing defenses so as to not require a completely new mechanism be built in the off season.

[carpedav000]

4-bar linkage portcullis? Seems like you could counterbalance it to where it spring assists up and then gently glides back down :rolleyes:

[Karibou]

The Portcullis is gone. I offered up a manipulation defense that it functionally similar to the portcullis.

I would argue that your suggested defense is not functionally the same as the portcullis, because of the reason I stated in my post. Some robots might be able to use the exact same mechanism on your defense, or a very similar one, but not all of them.

I'm not saying the chain is a bad idea. I actually think that, if we are considering all ideas for portcullis replacements (similar or not), it would be a good challenge. I'm just saying that it is not functionally the exact same, and if we are looking for an exact (but safer) replacement that would not require any existing portcullis-capable robots to change their design, that's not it.

What do you suggest? What are you willing to build in your garage to bring to off season events?
Honestly, I don't have a suggestion right now. I'm glad that nobody else will end up being hurt by a portcullis, and for that reason I will be accepting of whatever replaces it.

I think that some of the ideas presented in this thread are good (I particularly like the "rolling log" ones). If I had a garage and the equipment to do so, I would very gladly take the time to build any one of these ideas.

[ctt956]

I emailed Mark Lawrence yesterday a suggestion that the new defense be a 12 foot length of heavy chain encased in a vinyl tube suspended across the platform with the center of the loop 5 inches above the bottom platform.

It provides a challenge that is similar to the portcullis in that you have to lift the chain up and over the robot, but is easier in that it swings out of the way and harder in that the chain can catch on the robot as it passes under.

The vinyl/plastic cover is of course to prevent the chain from completing a circuit as it drags over your robot.

To me, this sounds like the original low bar, just...higher. If so, it could be functionally similar to both the low bar and the portcullis, allowing robots to pass through just by pushing the tube, like the tubes on the old low bar. Maybe then even bots too tall for the low bar could get through this.

[wlaroche]

What about putting the flat base for the portcullis in the slot and allow teams to cross whenever they like. The difference being that the crossings will not count till the last 20 seconds. So you can make the deicsision on doing crossings or climbing.

[adciv]

Many drivers would like to see the Drawbridge and Sally Port gone (or changed) because they are large and impossible to see through.

Is it bad I see the visibility issue as a feature?

I like a number of items which have been brought up, let me through in a wild card.

Allow teams to bring in their own defenses of whatever design they choose (within a few rules)
1) Can't fod the field
2) Must be possible to cross
3) If their robot cannot cross, the other alliance has higher priority for choosing to use it against them.

[dirtbikerxz]

Many drivers would like to see the Drawbridge and Sally Port gone (or changed) because they are large and impossible to see through.

I personally hated the visibility issues (im the driver) since we have a low bot. But then again, I would not want them gone, because it was just another challenge of the game. It's like tall bots saying they don't like the low bar, so it should be gone.

Plus I also like the visibility constrains, because it separates the good drivers from the not so good. For example (not bragging here), after the first few matches at our first regional, i was getting used to the field and our bot. So even when I didn't have direct line of sight, our performance wouldn't degrade (unless there was defense being played), because I could still estimate exactly where the bot was based off of instinct, even making knocking out the sally port easy.

[EricH]

How about using a Portcullis-like setup...

But instead of springs, use a counterweight system, to keep the door at roughly 5 lbf up-force? (Maybe use a return spring to start it on the downward motion, though.)

[dirtbikerxz]

I personally am a fan of the following ideas:

1. Cheval De Frise stuck in the down position, it provides the challenge of not going so fast or slow that might cause your bot to tip over, (plus the airtime photos are going to be great :P )

2. Or a custom made variant of the cheval de frise ramp idea, so that teams can go over it from both sides, and not just one.

3. Somehow stick boulders in the defense base/holder, so a bot would have to drive over the boulders. Challenge is to not get stuck.

I really don't like the idea of having an empty defense with no points. Because once the other 4 defenses are knocked out, than shooter bots will just traverse the outer works using the empty defense, making it way too easy.... plus 3 ball auto anyone?. And also, that completely negates the effect of the secret passage.. (okay not completely, but still).

[Cothron Theiss]

I really like the idea of having a rolling log or logs as a defense, but I feel like it might be very hard to build consistently or reliably. Another idea would be to take the frame of the Portcullis we already have and mount double doors that open in the middle to the sides of the Portcullis that are already there. However, the difficulty of this defense is that one of the doors, say the left door, will only open towards the Courtyard and the right door will only open towards the Neutral Zone. I think this could be moderately easy to build, and a fun defense for teams to tackle.

[Jonny_Jee]

the bumps from breakaway would make for a neat obstacle.

[maxnz]

Let me ask this: Where exactly was the problem on the portcullis? I know what the problem is but I just want to know what part of the portcullis caused the problem. Then we could try to think of a new portcullis that removes this problem.

[Doug Frisk]

Let me ask this: Where exactly was the problem on the portcullis? I know what the problem is but I just want to know what part of the portcullis caused the problem. Then we could try to think of a new portcullis that removes this problem.

The problem is, the springs on each side are 40 pound constant tension springs which means the actual door within the portcullis is 85 pounds total. With the springs attached, the door can be easily raised to about 10 feet at which point the assembly becomes very top heavy and tippy. Without the springs attached, the door can be lifted even higher and I understand that may have caused an incident or two. The springs themselves are metal ribbons with, while not a sharp edge, and edge that can cut ungloved fingers as the door moves up and down. Think of someone running 4 feet of the edge of a tape measure across your fingers. The wheels at the bottom of the door present a crush hazard as they roll up and down as well.

The assembly when finished is very easy to tip and has no hand holds or way to lock the door in place.

So, an improved portcullis is:


lighter.
has no exposed counterweight components.
has fewer sharp edges.
has a door that can be locked in place during transport.
has handholds for the field reset folks.


I'm sure there's more.

[Arhowk]

Let me ask this: Where exactly was the problem on the portcullis? I know what the problem is but I just want to know what part of the portcullis caused the problem. Then we could try to think of a new portcullis that removes this problem.

1) Size
2) Little bit topheavy
3) The giant blade that can easily deal enough damage if it slides on its track
4) the fact that, atleast in FiM, you have to have four people grab the portcullises and shove them on top of everything else

[Karibou]

So, an improved portcullis is:


lighter.
has no exposed counterweight components.
has fewer sharp edges.
has a door that can be locked in place during transport.
has handholds for the field reset folks.


I'm sure there's more.
I'd specifically say "has no exposed track components" - the weighting isn't the issue regarding pinch points (aside from the top-heaviness), it's the exposed track/wheel And if you cover that, you also pretty much cover the spring. But otherwise, that's a solid list. Just adding a latch/lock or handholds alone would have saved a lot of fingers.

[scott.smith]

I have heard a lot of ideas for a rolling log defense, and I really like the concept, but I feel one rolling log would be impossible to get over. I think that a better design for the defense would have 3-5 rolling cylinders, so it still has challenge, but isn't impossible.

[Doug Frisk]

I have heard a lot of ideas for a rolling log defense, and I really like the concept, but I feel one rolling log would be impossible to get over. I think that a better design for the defense would have 3-5 rolling cylinders, so it still has challenge, but isn't impossible.

Something like 5 lengths of 1 1/2" PVC suspended across the base on taut paracord?

I like it, but it seems to me that something would have to be added to slow the robots down, otherwise crossing that defense would simply be a matter of charging at it at full speed at which point the defense wouldn't last more than a couple of matches.

[notmattlythgoe]

otherwise crossing that defense would simply be a matter of charging at it at full speed

This was the strategy for over half of the defenses this year... including the portcullis.

[techhelpbb]

A box with closing walls. Cause everything should get a great big hug:
>:)<
or
Something like this:
http://www.significant-bits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Super_Mario_All_Stars_3_107.png

Drive fast...drive true...otherwise it will kind of crush you:
}:)

[ctt956]

A box with closing walls. Cause everything should get a great big hug:
>:)<
or
Something like this:
http://www.significant-bits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Super_Mario_All_Stars_3_107.png

Drive fast...drive true...otherwise it will kind of crush you:
}:)

YES! Definitely! This or a Bomb-Omb, or maybe a Chain Chomp. Goombas and Koopa Troopas would probably be good too.

[notmattlythgoe]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up of what I've heard from HQ.


Matt, thanks for your patience on this.

We just sent emails to District management instructing them not to supply the full portcullis to off-season events, but giving them the OK to supply the portcullis bases (as you have pictured below). As the game-specific elements stay with the Districts after the season is over, they have control of their own destinies on this.

We’ve also provided similar instructions to AndyMark.

[TheMagicPenguin]

There is no problem with the portcullis.
I competed at MAR district and even was a field reset volunteer at one of the events. I never hurt myself on it (wasn't wearing gloves either), and I haven't heard of anyone else hurting themself on it. Sure it's possible but after you get a cut once you learn to not put your fingers there. That simple. Getting rid of it because a few people weren't paying attention is ridiculous. With that logic we may as well get rid of all defenses because people can cut themselfs on it.

Getting rid of the portcullis penalizes all the teams (like mine) who spent hours on a autonomous for it. Even if HQ is nit letting people ship it out, make a almost identical defense, that doesn't penalizes teams who built a specific mechanism for it.

[CalTran]

There is no problem with the portcullis.
I competed at MAR district and even was a field reset volunteer at one of the events. I never hurt myself on it (wasn't wearing gloves either), and I haven't heard of anyone else hurting themself on it. Sure it's possible but after you get a cut once you learn to not put your fingers there. That simple. Getting rid of it because a few people weren't paying attention is ridiculous. With that logic we may as well get rid of all defenses because people can cut themselfs on it.

Getting rid of the portcullis penalizes all the teams (like mine) who spent hours on a autonomous for it. Even if HQ is nit letting people ship it out, make a almost identical defense, that doesn't penalizes teams who built a specific mechanism for it.

If it were in season, you can bet that all of us would be up in arms over this. Hell, look at the reaction when they changed the material of the low bar, let alone got rid of an entire defense.
Since it's off season though, I don't feel quite as shafted that they're not distributing the Port. It's large, difficult to see around when reffing (Particularly when it's in position 2 or 3), and there seems to be a few "major" injuries related to it (Or at least, more injuries than I've heard about from past seasons field reset), and teams have already had a chance to use whatever mechanisms that were purpose built.
And on the plus side, if you take off your Port manipulator, you might now have enough weight to cheesecake a climber on! :D

[TheMagicPenguin]

Since it's off season though, I don't feel quite as shafted that they're not distributing the Port. It's large, difficult to see around when reffing (Particularly when it's in position 2 or 3), and there seems to be a few "major" injuries related to it (Or at least, more injuries than I've heard about from past seasons field reset), and teams have already had a chance to use whatever mechanisms that were purpose built.

I see your points and your certainty not wrong, but I still believe it's not enough of a reason to get rid of it.

And on the plus side, if you take off your Port manipulator, you might now have enough weight to cheesecake a climber on! :D

I would normally agree with this however we already have a hanger and a pound or two to spare. Another good point though.

[notmattlythgoe]

I see your points and your certainty not wrong, but I still believe it's not enough of a reason to get rid of it.


There were multiple instances of multiple fingers broken because of the portcullis. That right there is absolutely enough reason to send it to the off-season events.

Had it been sent I would still be considering not running it at the Rumble in the Roads. The last thing I want is one of my volunteers to get a major injury.

[PayneTrain]

There were multiple instances of multiple fingers broken because of the portcullis. That right there is absolutely enough reason to send it to the off-season events.

Had it been sent I would still be considering not running it at the Rumble in the Roads. The last thing I want is one of my volunteers to get a major injury.

yea matt but what about the love of the game bro

[notmattlythgoe]

yea matt but what about the love of the game bro

http://www.weillcenter.com/assets/event-images/_resampled/CroppedImage600300-1377.jpg

[Crew Cox]

Anyone got an old treadmill belt and some spare 775s?
Really easy to cross one way not so much the other.

[RoboMom]

One of these. Check the PODS. They might be stored there. There was no room on the truck heading back to FIRST.

[Gravity]

We should have a defense that's just a bunch of boulders glued together. I like that boulder. That is a nice boulder.
http://i.imgur.com/SR0xxdN.png

[JG1902]

Revolving door?

[teku14]

The bumps from Breakaway

[frcguy]

The bumps from Breakaway



Yes. That thing looks absolutely terrifying. Naturally, I'd love to see some of this year's robots go over it.

[kyle_hamblett]

The bumps from Breakaway

Actually... That sounds like it could be lots of fun - It fits the same general idea of "crossing defenses" as well as being somewhat easy to replicate.

[jijiglobe]

My favorite idea is some variant of the cheval de frise. Most teams that can cross the portcullis can cross the cheval de frise, and, if not, they probably never got the portcullis picked against them anyway.

I'm tempted to say that we should just not have a portcullis, seeing as how it was rarely picked at champs. The only time I can remember seeing a portcullis was Einstien QF3M3, but that only happened because both alliances forgot to put in defense selections. (in our defense, Einstein is weird, and the timing is different from other fields)

Anyway, a defense that's like cheval but backwards, or all the quarters are attached together so that they move in unison seems like the best solution to me. Keep in mind that, if any new defenses are added, teams will not be able to test/write autonomous routines for them, so it's really only fair if it's basically identical to a portcullis, or a cheval.

[bobbysq]

In theory, if a team had a sponsor capable of making high precision metal parts, a bunch of spare polycarb, and the springs, they could offer to build a competition spec portcullis if it won't be present at an event.

[maxnz]

My favorite idea is some variant of the cheval de frise. Most teams that can cross the portcullis can cross the cheval de frise, and, if not, they probably never got the portcullis picked against them anyway.

I'm tempted to say that we should just not have a portcullis, seeing as how it was rarely picked at champs. The only time I can remember seeing a portcullis was Einstien QF3M3, but that only happened because both alliances forgot to put in defense selections. (in our defense, Einstein is weird, and the timing is different from other fields)

Anyway, a defense that's like cheval but backwards, or all the quarters are attached together so that they move in unison seems like the best solution to me. Keep in mind that, if any new defenses are added, teams will not be able to test/write autonomous routines for them, so it's really only fair if it's basically identical to a portcullis, or a cheval.

A cheval de frise that is connected together and moves in unison probably would work best. It could be angled down towards the courtyard so you have to use a cheval routine to cross from the neutral zone to the courtyard, but crossing the other way doesn't require any extra work.

[Shifter]

The organizers of the 2016 STEMley Cup Championship (https://stemleycup.wordpress.com/) are considering several modifications to the Stronghold game including freezing of the moats and this one:

"5. The evolution of the BOULDER... the CANNONBALL: one red and one blue CANNONBALL (ie. coloured BOULDER) start the match behind their respective alliance walls and may be introduced to the field by the HUMAN PLAYER only in the last twenty seconds of the MATCH. CANNONBALLS, being more destructive than ye BOULDERS of olde, are worth double the value of a regular gray BOULDER when scored in a tower GOAL (ie. ten points in the HIGH GOAL and two TOWER STRENGTH POINTS, four points in the LOW GOAL and two TOWER STRENGTH POINTS)."

[ctt956]

The organizers of the 2016 STEMley Cup Championship (https://stemleycup.wordpress.com/) are considering several modifications to the Stronghold game including freezing of the moats and this one:

"5. The evolution of the BOULDER... the CANNONBALL: one red and one blue CANNONBALL (ie. coloured BOULDER) start the match behind their respective alliance walls and may be introduced to the field by the HUMAN PLAYER only in the last twenty seconds of the MATCH. CANNONBALLS, being more destructive than ye BOULDERS of olde, are worth double the value of a regular gray BOULDER when scored in a tower GOAL (ie. ten points in the HIGH GOAL and two TOWER STRENGTH POINTS, four points in the LOW GOAL and two TOWER STRENGTH POINTS)."

I like the cannonball idea! By "freezing of the moats", does that mean filling them with ice, leaving them in place, or something else?

[efoote868]

Sure it's possible but after you get a cut once you learn to not put your fingers there. That simple.
I'm not trying to single you out, but I wish people wouldn't have this sort of calloused attitude towards safety. I'm certain the people that broke fingers or required stitches from volunteering have a different point of view.

[TheMagicPenguin]

I'm not trying to single you out, but I wish people wouldn't have this sort of calloused attitude towards safety. I'm certain the people that broke fingers or required stitches from volunteering have a different point of view.

When a volunteer signs up for field reset I believe they should have expected some level of danger. When I did feild reset this year I defiantly got some cuts on my hands and such (as I expected to), but I didn't complain saying that the rough terrain should be forbidden because I got hurt on it. I put my hand where I shouldn't have and after that I didn't do it again.

I don't disagree that breaking fingers and getting stiches is a little different, however by signing up to volenteer you know what the job is and the dangers it could potentially bring. You know what your getting yourself into.

My solution to this problem would have been after the first time there was a "severe" inquiry would have been to give volunteers an option to not work with the portcullis. Better training for handling it would have helped too. Obviously it's a little late for that now.

[rick.oliver]

Personnel safety MUST be the highest priority in the design of any mechanism which has the potential to be in contact with a person.

"Nothing we do is worth getting hurt." The most successful companies which I have dealt with in my career strive to operate with ZERO safety incidents. The best record even minor injuries and operate to drive those to Zero as well.

Safety must be a core value of every engineer; should be a core value of everybody.

[Chris is me]

When a volunteer signs up for field reset I believe they should have expected some level of danger. When I did feild reset this year I defiantly got some cuts on my hands and such (as I expected to), but I didn't complain saying that the rough terrain should be forbidden because I got hurt on it. I put my hand where I shouldn't have and after that I didn't do it again.

For one thing, comparing multiple people seriously and permanently injuring their fingers and hands (broken bones, etc) to being cut by a sharp edge is just callous. You didn't complain, because you weren't seriously injured. If you were, especially by something you didn't perceive to have such serious risk, you wouldn't be making armchair calls on the internet about how other volunteers should just suck it up.

The ways the portcullis injured people were not always intuitively obvious, and were very easy for someone to do to themselves. From what I understand, the assembly tends to fall apart when not installed in a base (via twisting or whatnot), and trying to catch the falling heavy door leaves your fingers very vulnerable to being pinched. The CF springs at the top of the door also have lots of stored energy and sharp edges.

After week 3 or 4 this year, your common-sense idea of keeping volunteers away from the portcullis was implemented at some events - only FTAs were allowed to assemble it I believe. It was known to be dangerous since then, and was kept in the competition to be fair to the competitors and to avoid mid season rule changes.

[notmattlythgoe]

When a volunteer signs up for field reset I believe they should have expected some level of danger. When I did feild reset this year I defiantly got some cuts on my hands and such (as I expected to), but I didn't complain saying that the rough terrain should be forbidden because I got hurt on it. I put my hand where I shouldn't have and after that I didn't do it again.

I don't disagree that breaking fingers and getting stiches is a little different, however by signing up to volenteer you know what the job is and the dangers it could potentially bring. You know what your getting yourself into.

My solution to this problem would have been after the first time there was a "severe" inquiry would have been to give volunteers an option to not work with the portcullis. Better training for handling it would have helped too. Obviously it's a little late for that now.

A lot of people doing field reset are getting their first into to FRC, coming in they should not be expected to know there is a risk of serious injury.

[efoote868]

When a volunteer signs up for field reset I believe they should have expected some level of danger. When I did feild reset this year I defiantly got some cuts on my hands and such (as I expected to), but I didn't complain saying that the rough terrain should be forbidden because I got hurt on it. I put my hand where I shouldn't have and after that I didn't do it again.

What you're posting is troubling to me. What you're describing is what FIRST's safety culture should address, but appears to be failing.

If anyone is ever injured at an event, we absolutely should be reporting it. At a minimum, we should make FIRST and the event know, and possibly other volunteers and teams aware of the injury.

For one, anything that can be addressed should be addressed. Maybe there were sharp edges missed on the defense that should have been filed down (out of spec equipment). Maybe volunteers need to be wearing gloves (inadequate Personal Protection Equipment). These are easy to correct, but won't be corrected until the proper people know about it.

Two, other people need to know so that the injury can be learned from. How terrible would it be if someone else was injured in the exact same way because people that knew the hazard existed said nothing.

Three, this is something that you'll see and is practiced in the real world, and it's not something you should have to learn your first day on the job. It's more important than shouting "ROBOT" anyway.

[Conor Ryan]

Another Idea:

The Kool Aid Defense (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE).

Take a large sheet of paper. Hang it in the former portcullis without the gate. Every time a team breaks through the paper successfully AND the audience yells "OH YEAH" the team gets points. Audience participation is required to receive points.

You'll need a lot of tape and paper, however it will increase audience participation.

[ctt956]

Another Idea:

The Kool Aid Defense (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE).

Take a large sheet of paper. Hang it in the former portcullis without the gate. Every time a team breaks through the paper successfully AND the audience yells "OH YEAH" the team gets points. Audience participation is required to receive points.

You'll need a lot of tape and paper, however it will increase audience participation.

Oh yeah! :D

P.S. Running out of tape shouldn't be an issue; what team doesn't bring duct tape? :)

[efoote868]

Another Idea:

The Kool Aid Defense (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE).

Take a large sheet of paper. Hang it in the former portcullis without the gate. Every time a team breaks through the paper successfully AND the audience yells "OH YEAH" the team gets points. Audience participation is required to receive points.

You'll need a lot of tape and paper, however it will increase audience participation.

Could get one of those screens with magnets on them.
http://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Screen-Frame-Velcro-Openings/dp/B00KZNOHTW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463534646&sr=8-1&keywords=magnet+screen+door

[tickspe15]

A lot of people doing field reset are getting their first into to FRC, coming in they should not be expected to know there is a risk of serious injury.

Maybe more regions should adopt the 21+ policy for field reset. I wonder if Minnesota saw fewer portcullis injuries as a result of their more experienced volunteers

/S

[Nate Laverdure]

Twinkie Defense: two large yellow blocks of open-cell foam, rounded at all edges, loosely covered together in a single layer of 6 mil transparent plastic sheeting.

[Alex2614]

• A Chute Door


You had to go there...

[Shifter]

I like the cannonball idea! By "freezing of the moats", does that mean filling them with ice, leaving them in place, or something else?

Despite our love for hockey, even in Canada we cannot get permission to fill and freeze the moats (high school gym, wooden floors, blah, blah, blah). Instead, the resourceful STEMley planners have been searching for the next best thing - a surface which simulates the low friction characteristic of frozen water.

No, not regolith.

Robot testing is currently underway on a roller top surface (see attachment) that would fill the gap between the moat side walls.

Team registration (https://stemleycup.wordpress.com/registration/) for the 2016 STEMley Cup Championship (along with the two other Ontario off-season events) is open now.

[ctt956]

Could get one of those screens with magnets on them.
http://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Screen-Frame-Velcro-Openings/dp/B00KZNOHTW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463534646&sr=8-1&keywords=magnet+screen+door

Remember what happened to the low bar fabric? That screen isn't nearly as thick, and while it may look like it would hold up, it's probably cheaply made like most infomercial products. And if a magnet on that stuck to something on a robot...:yikes: wait...I have an idea! Fairly weak magnets that may or may not chase/stick to robots!

[bobbysq]

Fairly weak magnets that may or may not chase/stick to robots!
Our robot has steel plates on it. This would be fun.

[dmelcer9]

How about strip curtains (these are those plastic curtains at the car wash). They would reduce visibility, but not too much. I was thinking the curtains can be about twice as high as the low bar.

[frcguy]

Our robot has steel plates on it. This would be fun.


Our robot is all aluminum! We are invincible!

[Gravity]

Our robot is all aluminum! We are invincible!
What about the bumpers? ;)

[Doug Frisk]

How about strip curtains (these are those plastic curtains at the car wash). They would reduce visibility, but not too much. I was thinking the curtains can be about twice as high as the low bar.

Robots are allowed to be 54" tall, so any defense should be designed around that constraint and allow 60" of clearance or you've set a new arbitrary height requirement.

[ctt956]

Twinkie Defense: two large yellow blocks of open-cell foam, rounded at all edges, loosely covered together in a single layer of 6 mil transparent plastic sheeting.

WALL-E game again? :)

How about strip curtains (these are those plastic curtains at the car wash). They would reduce visibility, but not too much. I was thinking the curtains can be about twice as high as the low bar.

So the tall robots can see what it's like to breach the low bar? Not a bad idea!

Our robot is all aluminum! We are invincible!

Not so fast...everything is on eBay! :D

[notmattlythgoe]

I present to you two new defenses:

The Hill (https://goo.gl/photos/tahpTbnCfiXaY5GB8)
http://i.imgur.com/IB5gJWH.png

The Trap (https://goo.gl/photos/MqgeVQEB73BTVwex5)
http://i.imgur.com/LcIFQU7.png

[Jane n Mike]

A MOAT WITH ACTUAL WATER.

Finally, a water game!!!