View Full Version : Team 68's REAL ROBOT!!!
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 16:45
here it is, the real thing. sorry, but i couldn't help posting the pictures of our mockup robot earlier this season. This is the truck town robot. enjoy.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 16:48
arms go up too, (DUH)
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 16:49
and arms go out
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 16:51
and arms go over, you get the point.
Aaron Lussier
20-02-2003, 16:59
...:ahh: ... Wow... Just wow
Eric Bareiss
20-02-2003, 17:01
I can't belive you actually did it! I could not think of how to get over the sides and block the bar too, but you did it. Wow. It looks almost unstoppable. I applaud you.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 17:29
better view of the second and third stage arms
Matt Reiland
20-02-2003, 17:38
Fantastic Robot, wonderful job on all of the welding
I have a feeling it is going to take a whippen though this year guarding all of the different access areas.
Harrison
20-02-2003, 17:52
Truck Town does it again....
Guys, that is a fabulous looking machine...my hats' off to you.
See you at the GLR!
(PS: Hopefully that one won't tip over like the onle last year did...I remember that happening to you guys...)
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 18:07
(PS: Hopefully that one won't tip over like the onle last year did...I remember that happening to you guys...)
This one shouldn't do anything like that. And if you remember correctly the problem of tipping was taken care of shortly after it was discovered to be a possible problem. The problem of tipping didn't take place again at Great Lakes, Western Michigan, or Nationals. Lets hope there isn't a call for reverse engineering this year.
Great job guys, you make myself as an alumnus very proud!!!
Hey Alex, how about some stats? Toss in some Mr. Smith calculations ;)
Caleb Fulton
20-02-2003, 18:37
How do you make sure it is aligned properly before deploying the secondary arms?
Ken Leung
20-02-2003, 18:42
The robot looks great! Very creative design. Except one thing that keep bugging me.
I believe the rules states that robots are not allow to interact with the barrier... Just like at 2001 when robots aren't supposed to use the limbo bar to climb over, or at 2000 when robots aren't suppose to touch the goals to score balls.
So, when an opponent robot push against your fork, and the ended up pushing against the barrier, wouldn't that be illegal when you are using the barrier to help block enemy robot?
I suppose a different angle to look at this is if a robot is in front of the barrier, and an opponent robot push against the first robot, and can't go under the bar because the first robot won't fit under... than that would be ok because the robot isn't intentionally using the barrier to block the opponent robot...
I don't mean to be disrespectful... I am just wondering if you thought about this when you design the robot?
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 19:05
Originally posted by Ken L
I believe the rules states that robots are not allow to interact with the barrier...
yes, we have thought of this. the rule states (please correct me if i am wrong) that you can not interact with more than one "face" of the barrier. well, there is no way that (even if u pushed on both sides) those arms would pinch so that it touched on two sides. This form of agressive pushing is also considered "pinning"
GM31
Reacting is grabbing or using the top of the field borders, the top of the driver stations, the top of the pipes at midfield, and the top of the platform/ramp polycarbonate sides with the intent of supporting a robot or robot part. It is also unacceptable to grab onto or push hard enough against multiple surfaces simultaneously in order to wedge and make immovable a robot. Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable
at the end of the game, however, we have to lift our arms up, in order to get the extra 25 points
BionicAlumni
20-02-2003, 19:17
Does the bot lift up off the HDPE and put all of its weight on the carpet until the last second? Or is no weight tranfered to the carpet?
Bduggan04
20-02-2003, 19:26
Very Cool. It looks neat and strong. However, it seems like it would be easy to eliminate the king of the hill points by pressing the forks against the midfield barrier.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 19:27
Originally posted by BionicAlumni
Does the bot lift up off the HDPE and put all of its weight on the carpet until the last second? Or is no weight tranfered to the carpet?
no weight is transfered to the carpet.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 19:28
Originally posted by Bduggan04
Very Cool. It looks neat and strong. However, it seems like it would be easy to eliminate the king of the hill points by pressing the forks against the midfield barrier.
after 10 seconds that becomes pinning. and, in the time it would take to back away, we can easily lift our arms up at the last second.
f22flyboy
20-02-2003, 19:31
Whats the distance from the HDPE to the underside of your arms?
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 19:34
Originally posted by f22flyboy
Whats the distance from the HDPE to the underside of your arms?
0 inches
our downrigging system comes out of the end of the first section of arms (not pictured in any of the previuous photos), locks into place, and weight is transferred to pads, adding more stability. however, if you are simply refering to height, its about 9 inches, but, unless you have a super skinny bot, your not going to make it past our downriggers
f22flyboy
20-02-2003, 19:38
I was thinking more along the lines of "through" rather than under
BionicAlumni
20-02-2003, 19:44
I have to say it looks amazing. If you guys are the first ones to the HDPE I am not sure what teams will do to stop you.
One thing I would say, is I sure hope you have a couple extra sets of your outrigers, because I see you have to replace bent ones a lot.
That was my thought too...It looks amazing, and has the potential to truely dominate a match. But if those wings are made of aluminum-which it appears that they are- I hope that you have plenty of spare parts.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 20:13
Originally posted by Joe3
That was my thought too...It looks amazing, and has the potential to truely dominate a match. But if those wings are made of aluminum-which it appears that they are- I hope that you have plenty of spare parts.
that is T6 aluminum tubing. Hard to bend, but yes, its going to happen. Weve got backups.
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 20:15
Id just like to take this moment to thank everyone for their incisive input. We here at T3 will take what you all have said into serious consideration for problems. Keep up the good work!
team222badbrad
20-02-2003, 20:31
Team 222 is attending AZ, I am wondering how your partner is going to score 25 points if you are blocking the whole ramp?
Can you bring back in the forks after you deployed them?
GOOD LUCK
www.tahsroboticsteam.org NEW 2003 pics are up
can you individually control the downriggers on the bar in order to temporarily allow your teammate to go under the bar and to the other side of the field?
Scott Garver
20-02-2003, 21:10
Originally posted by Solace
can you individually control the downriggers on the bar in order to temporarily allow your teammate to go under the bar and to the other side of the field?
Yes, we can independently raise and lower the section that goes over the bar on each side.
OneAngryDaisy
20-02-2003, 21:13
Awesome... You guys have obviously thought this through and through..
You must know that your robot will be pushed and plowed repeatedly by very strong teams.. what have you done to make sure your robot is the strongest? any special features?
Also, how fast are you to the top of the ramp? If you're not number one, those extending wings are useless..
still- kudos for that amazing bot..
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 21:21
Originally posted by team222badbrad
Team 222 is attending AZ, I am wondering how your partner is going to score 25 points if you are blocking the whole ramp?
Can you bring back in the forks after you deployed them?
GOOD LUCK
www.tahsroboticsteam.org NEW 2003 pics are up
besides being able to lift our arms up to allow people to get next to us, we have staggered our arms, allowing people to sit nect to us, against our arms. And, as for being the first to the ramp, our robot is fast. But, suppose another teem gets there first, we simply lower our first section of arms, move bins around, and then finally, move the other bot out of our way. Not only are we a very fast bot, but a very strong one too.
How long does it take you to get to the HDPE in autonomous?
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 21:33
Uhh, lol, that really depends on which material we have on our treads. But, A rough time of 10 seconds to be at the top of the ramp is fairly close.
well,its not exactly a great time, but i guess u guys are planning on moving around during the match, or are u gonna sit on the ramp?
Alexander McGee
20-02-2003, 21:42
of course. we can either sit, or move around a lot. We dont plan on being a punching bag this year, were going to play each match as we get it. That's up to the strategy section of our team.:D
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 21:52
That's up to the strategy section of our team.
Thanks!!
I am sure Denny and I will be more than busy throughout the competitions as well as any down time. Wish Phil was around for this great season!!
All you have to do is just make sure that Big T3 truck is done!!! ;)
Lauren Bendes
20-02-2003, 21:58
Thanks to all of the teams who have been checking out our robot! We are very proud of our bot this year and hope that we can take it great places. It is comments like yours that help us determine our strategy. Hopefully everyone else this year is as proud of their robot as we are about our own. GOOD LUCK AND CYA SOON!
~Lauren~
Go out there and kick some robutt!
Yan Wang
20-02-2003, 22:07
Nice looking robot; hope you have lots of spare arms because the judges won't really be strict against teams trying to push something that covers the field...
Oh yeah, read this too:
I can tell a lot of teams will be starting to upload teasers and other images of their robots soon.
PLEASE upload these to the picture gallery, rather than attaching to a post. I'd rather have apache handle serving the images, rather than mysql. The database backup process also thanks you.
Once your image is approved (shouldn't take a long time to get approved) you can then reference the image in the gallery with vbCode [IMG ] tags. You either have the choice of starting a thread in 'Robot Showcase', to show your robot -- OR -- let someone start a discussion via the picture gallery.
Thanks,
Brandon
Your limbo bar setup is illegal.
From the FRC Forums
Q. To what extent can parts of the robot contact the midfield barrier?
Jan 23rd
A. GM 28 prohibits "attachment". GM31 allows incidental contact. A trip device to lower or displace the rotating beacon is allowed as long as the lower bar itself is not used to force the light down to get under the bar. Any intentional hard contact with the midfield barrier is prohibited. The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots. It is intended to demarcate the midfield and prevent containers from being slid from one side of the field to the other.
Jan 20 (diff, but similar question)
A. See Rule GM31. You can touch the midfield barrrier but you cannot react off of it. You can step over it. you can go under it. If, in wrapping around the pipe barrier you rely on it for support, you will be penalized.
Jan 20
You may contact the barrier. You may use the barrier to detect it or locate it. You may not jamb containers or robots under it. You may not react off the bar. This means that you may not purposely push off it to gain an advantage.
You may not use the bar to force your robot to decrease in height ( i. e. compress springs to make the robot low enough to go under the bar)
By this rule, you are reacting with the barrier. Your limbo mechanism is purposely pushing off the barrier to gain advantage when a robot runs into it. Incidental contact is okay, but reacting on it as you are is illegal.
Lauren Bendes
20-02-2003, 22:19
As posted earlier our robot's arms dont actually touch anypart of the side bars or the plexiglass. The rule states to touch with the intent of supporting your robot and we have all of our support on the HDPE. We have taken into consideration many different aspects of contact and have cleared all of them. It will be okay...
Thanks for your concern.
Lauren
:D
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 22:22
From the FRC Forums
Q. To what extent can parts of the robot contact the midfield barrier?
Jan 23rd
A. GM 28 prohibits "attachment". GM31 allows incidental contact. A trip device to lower or displace the rotating beacon is allowed as long as the lower bar itself is not used to force the light down to get under the bar. Any intentional hard contact with the midfield barrier is prohibited. The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots. It is intended to demarcate the midfield and prevent containers from being slid from one side of the field to the other.
Jan 20 (diff, but similar question)
A. See Rule GM31. You can touch the midfield barrrier but you cannot react off of it. You can step over it. you can go under it. If, in wrapping around the pipe barrier you rely on it for support, you will be penalized.
For the first one: the contact with the bar will be incidental on the part of our robot. If another team pushes us into it, there is a major difference. We are not intentionally doing anything it will be other teams on the field that make us touch it.
For the second one: we are not wrapping around, the maximum that our robot will ever touch is on one side and that is the result of another team pushing into it.
Hard words coming out.....
Read the bold text.
When a robot hits your "mechanism", it will hit the midfield barrier, thereby reacting against it purposely. It's pretty obvious this mechanism is intentionally designed to react off the barrier to gain advantage.
The question you have to ask yourself is this: If the midfield barrier weren't there, would a team still be able to get by? If the answer to this is yes, then you are relying on the barrier, thereby purposely reacting on it.
I doubt you can answer no to that question because those arms are a very, very long lever. There's virtually no drivetrain that can push against that 12'+ lever.
There's no difference between this, and grabbing a goal in last years game, and having a mechanism that sticks between two field poles and saying, "Oh, we're not touching the field poles, but if someone pushes us, that's their fault."
In the end, it will come down to the referee ruling at the competition. We'll just have to wait and see.
Caleb Fulton
20-02-2003, 22:24
IMHO, it's too cool of a design to be illegal :)
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 22:26
Still we can argue that a downward force is on each of those legs.
This is all I have to say: Toy story's spider has been reborn...
Gadget470
20-02-2003, 22:36
Perhap's the "Tether Rule" may be subjected here. Where as the illegal items become legal because there was a lot of engineering effort put in. Who knows, I agree that it will be a ref's decision.
Originally posted by Gadget470
Perhap's the "Tether Rule" may be subjected here. Where as the illegal items become legal because there was a lot of engineering effort put in. Who knows, I agree that it will be a ref's decision.
I hope they stop this problem before it starts, otherwise teams will be adding mechanisms to take advantage of this loophole.
Kinda like filecards and tape measures last year. Everyone had them after they found out they were legal.
Then FIRST tried to crack down at Nationals but by then it was too late, everyone had them.
DanLevin247
20-02-2003, 22:41
Wow. Beautiful machine. Consider me jealous.
Also, I have thought about it, and I have decided, that if some robots choose to go under that bar, back up, get some speed going, that arm isn't going to stop them very well.
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 22:57
Originally posted by DanLevin247
Wow. Beautiful machine. Consider me jealous.
Also, I have thought about it, and I have decided, that if some robots choose to go under that bar, back up, get some speed going, that arm isn't going to stop them very well.
We are hoping teams go this approuch. Not to damage the arms but to try and figure out the best approuch to get across or under. I believe that almost the entire team would agree that they hope to be damaged every match. The more damage the better. If a team wanted to break the entire arm off I don't believe you would hear objections because of the design of the robot and the way we plan to play ALMOST every match.
Honestly, I think that you have been far to optimistic in your design. I know that we will easily push ur arms into the field barriers and cause u penalties. I also could not imagine how ur arms will stand up to the rigors of a competition with 12ft/sec veteran robots. I just think you guys went to far.
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 23:03
Originally posted by Jnadke
I hope they stop this problem before it starts, otherwise teams will be adding mechanisms to take advantage of this loophole.
Kinda like filecards and tape measures last year. Everyone had them after they found out they were legal.
Then FIRST tried to crack down at Nationals but by then it was too late, everyone had them.
I know that as a team we are having a hard time understanding how someone is having such a problem with the rules after 6 weeks of knowing them... I will be up front with you on this, as one of people who thought this idea up, there are ways to beat this design and out score our team. Your challenge is now to discover how to. Its not all that hard to figure out how to.... and traction power is not needed... see you at competition.
those bars have to be Al pipes by the look of them, otherwise my guess is they would be overweight. All and all it does look rather heavy...that weight had to come from someplace.
How good is your traction and how does your autonomous program run? Line tracking dead reckoning by voltage or what?
Mark Garver
20-02-2003, 23:12
Originally posted by Katy
those bars have to be Al pipes by the look of them, otherwise my guess is they would be overweight. All and all it does look rather heavy...that weight had to come from someplace.
How good is your traction and how does your autonomous program run? Line tracking dead reckoning by voltage or what?
They are made from Aluminum. We actually had to add weight because we were about 30 pounds under weight.
Great traction!! The autonomous mode has a couple different selections, however the way the program runs... well I guess maybe we use about 5 different methods and then take an average. Sound about right Alex?
Jeremy_Mc
20-02-2003, 23:49
i hate to be the devil's advocate, but i will have to agree that your method of reacting with the alley barriers might cause you some penalties.
if it comes to where a robot pushing you begins to damage the field, they will more than likely disable you instead of the bot pushing. it's technically your robot causing the damage.
i don't disagree this is indeed a very amazing robot. i merely wanted to warn you of what i think could seriously hinder your progress in the competitions.
*jeremy
Scott Garver
21-02-2003, 00:10
Originally posted by Jeremy_Mc
i hate to be the devil's advocate, but i will have to agree that your method of reacting with the alley barriers might cause you some penalties.
if it comes to where a robot pushing you begins to damage the field, they will more than likely disable you instead of the bot pushing. it's technically your robot causing the damage.
i don't disagree this is indeed a very amazing robot. i merely wanted to warn you of what i think could seriously hinder your progress in the competitions.
*jeremy
I will have to disagree with the fact that they will disable our robot because what is to gain by doing it... The field althought being damaged by our arm, it is the force exerted by the other robot that will continue to be doing the damage. However if they disable other team the damage will stop, becuse without outside intervention out robot does not damage the field in any way. Therefore I believe that it is the other robot that will be disabled.
BOMBer84
21-02-2003, 00:35
I have a few questions for you guys, but first off, you guys did a great job designing your robot. What you guys have is one heck of a brilliant design. You guys took the rule book and said:"We can't brace ourselves on the stupid plexiglass sides, eh? That's okay, we didn't need 'em in the first place!" Kudos to you guys. Now to my questions:
1. What is the clearence of your arms over the HDPE?
2. What is your guy's estimated top speed?
3. How long does it take to deploy your arms?
If one of T3 guys could answer these it'd be greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by Scott Garver
I will have to disagree with the fact that they will disable our robot because what is to gain by doing it... The field althought being damaged by our arm, it is the force exerted by the other robot that will continue to be doing the damage. However if they disable other team the damage will stop, becuse without outside intervention out robot does not damage the field in any way. Therefore I believe that it is the other robot that will be disabled.
It doesn't mean they have to disable your bot.
Last year much of the time they just waited until the end of a match to disqualify a team.
The Lucas
21-02-2003, 01:52
Since the triangular arm that ur outriggers fold out from ("wing sheaths") are a few inches of the ramp (~12in i figure from picture) it would be very easy for bots to combine a push with a upward lifting force on these arms . In this situation very little force will actually opposes the bot pushing you (your wheel base is off ramp). The reactionary force supplied by ur outriggers reacting against the mid-barrier will become a torque (instead of opposing pushing) which will be added to the torque of the bot pushing and lifting ur bot. This could cause ur bot to tip over in an incredibly spectacular fall.
With the number of pushers with wedges and forklift stackers i expect to see in this competition, many bots should have the potential to do this. I wouldn't rely on the refs to DQ a bot for flipping u, since u are pretty much fair game on top of the ramp and ur outriggers technically flipped u as much the other bot. U might want to figure out a design mod (suction cups maybe) to combat this strategy.
As for the notion that another bot will be disabled for pushing against u and ur arms damaging the playing field, that probaly will not happen. If the refs are anything like last year, T3 bot will be DQed for any playing field damage. MOEhawk was DQed for bunching the carpet when other robots pushed on our well anchored bot. No damage would have occurred if the the other bot hadnt pushed on a system that takes over 500lbs of force to overcome static friction. They actually caused more damage to the carpet by spinning wheels while pushing. We had 4 or more DQs last year while our opponents had 0 DQs.
Mark Garver
21-02-2003, 02:19
Originally posted by Jnadke
It doesn't mean they have to disable your bot.
Last year much of the time they just waited until the end of a match to disqualify a team.
I will have to disagree with you and agree with my brother of course. It will depend on the defination of what caused the field to fail. Since the force came from the opponents robot, I would DQ that team, even though that force was acting through a portion of our teams robot that wasn't ever meant to touch the bar in that manner. Also what if we simple lefted the arms for the robots to go under? We don't intend to stop robots, that wasn't what the design called for. The game isn't to stop robots and this team's plan is to follow what the game was intended for, that is to play with the containers. Think about it.... there is no need to stop robots once you are on top of the ramp from going under the bar. So if we were to get DQ I would have to say the only way that would happen is if we attached ourself to the bar, which isn't what we are doing. If you push into our arms, you only have 10 seconds and then you have to back away or be DQ for pinning.
sevisehda
21-02-2003, 02:28
I doubt they'd DQ a team for shoving another bot, that would be like DQ 2 teams if the both rushed the ramp and crushed half the crates. I'd be more about bots bashing the arms into paperclips or not being perfectly aligned. The only rule violation I see is the wedge rule. The rule states you can't interact with more than 1 surface to form an impassible barrier so if both of your 3rd stages touch the bars then that may be breaking that rule. Other than that its looks very professional.
David.Cook
21-02-2003, 02:32
Very nice design. Just one thought...
Are you guarding the ramp the whole time? No prob. We will grab bins, run up the ramp, and fling them to our side, to make sure we have one point more. All graciously professional, of course.
Go Sparky! Team 384
Dave.
The robot is quite interesting in that it reveals a lot about the way you guys analyze a problem. It is a great plan, HOWEVER... The rule that says that you may not push off of a midfield barrier to gain an advantage definitely comes into play. When a bot tries to get over the ramp and hits you, you redirect the force to the midfield barrier, hence reacting on the barrier. It also means that you are pushing against a midfield barrier to gain an advantage.
Adam Krajewski
21-02-2003, 07:57
Great robot.
I've been waiting to see what T3 would come up with for this year. I am impressed.
Seems to me that any pushing of the arms will not cause playing field damage, only arm damage by pinning/ramming them into the the midfield bar. And knowing T3, they carry more spares than any other team in FIRST.
It is an interesting interpretation of the rules. Any team that rams the arms WILL be pinning the T3 'bot to the midfield barrier. I'm certain there were many such discussions amongst the team about the legality issues and I KNOW that Mr. Evoy and others would not build a bot they thought to be illegal.
Pinning is, of course, LEGAL for a limited time period. You push a robot into a corner, and the robot is 'reacting' to the side of the playing field. That's simply physics. No robot operation or function is caused by the incidental contact.
I think it is an ultra clever way to stop robots from trying to pin the T3 machine.
It's not unbeatable or unfair, it IS a solid looking robot.
Frankly, because all we see is pictures, who know if they will ever touch the barrier. Outriggers plus solid traction and the limbo-blocking legs may not even come into play.
I can't wait to see it in action.
What blows my mind is that it was underweight. A Truck robot underweight? Never saw that coming.
Adam
camtunkpa
21-02-2003, 09:14
Hey, great design team 68, good luck in the upcoming season!!!!
Team 222
Joe Matt
21-02-2003, 09:17
I see some problems, but otherwise good job.
Alexander McGee
21-02-2003, 10:35
Originally posted by Jnadke
I hope they stop this problem before it starts, otherw....Everyone had them after they found out they were legal.
I would challenge ANY team to attempt to revamp their design at a competition to do something like this.
DanLevin247
21-02-2003, 11:26
Originally posted by magnasmific
I would challenge ANY team to attempt to revamp their design at a competition to do somethinglike this. Good luck.
You have an intimidating robot Magnasmific, but that doesn't give you permission to get cocky about it. Your robot isn't perfect, neither is ours, or any other bot out there. Your robot does a spectaular job handling one aspect of the game, but rest assured, there will be more than a few robots that will be able to show you up.
Gadget470
21-02-2003, 11:28
Team's would not be pinning T3 is they ram them on the limbo rails. Pinning is defined as blocking all movement of another bot. If a team pin's their legs to the pole it's not illegal because T3 can still drive their motors or retract the legs. I expect the legs to break at some point with field damage as a result.
I think 68 may have been a little hasty with their mechansim, they have very little clearence when both passing over and locking down their legs from their mechanism to the lexan.
When in semi-perfect position, those arms look like they are less than 4" from the sidewall's top. if they get too far to a side their legs will be useless.
Alexander McGee
21-02-2003, 11:35
Originally posted by DanLevin247
You have an intimidating robot Magnasmific, but that doesn't give you permission to get cocky about it. Your robot isn't perfect, neither is ours, or any other bot out there. Your robot does a spectaular job handling one aspect of the game, but rest assured, there will be more than a few robots that will be able to show you up.
I wasn't trying to be "cocky", and i apologise if it came across this way. I was simply stating that this was a very difficult thing to build, and that it would be hard to imitate during a competition (rebuilding a person's robot), it had nothing to do with showing off. I thank everyone once again for their input and we will defineatelly take everything into consideration
Paul Copioli
21-02-2003, 11:56
As always, team 68 has done an outstanding job! I come from a team where we take a very strict interpretation of the rules, so I have a few questions/comments:
1. Is there a non-metal/hard plastic material on the bottom of the outrigger legs? I am assuming those legs touch the carpet.
2. Are the outriggers inteded to push against the floor as to transfer weight to the outriggers?
3. If your answer to 2 is not yes, then it looks to me as if you are using the midfield barrier to gain an advantage. The rules referenced earlier in this post seem to address that issue.
As far as the pinning goes, I would be VERY suprised if a team got DQ'd for pinning you if your outriggers are reacting with the midfield barrier. Team 217's interpretation of the rule is that the midfield pipes are there to make it harder to cross the field. Any other use of the barrier is probably illegal.
The argument that you're not touching the barrier until someone pushes you is a pretty weak claim, because it is clear to me that you are straddling the midfield bar for a specific purpose.
Of course, please ignore number 3 if your answer to #2 is yes.
For what it's worth, I think you have an amazing design.
-Paul
Alexander McGee
21-02-2003, 11:59
Understand this. This is a beatable robot. All robots can be defeated with strategy. Look at Beatty, everyone saw them as undefeatable, and , well, they did win nationals, but they were still beaten in some rounds.
I am very proud of my robot, we put a lot of work into is, as im sure that all of you are proud of your robots. I am NOT saying that this robot is undefeatabe. Gadget is right, everyone worked very hard on what they built in these last six weeks.
Also, i'm sure that there are other robots out there like this. A lot of teams would be wantng to their robots a secret. I think that sharing your robot is a great way to help scouts, as well as provide constructive criticism for our designs.
Once again, i thank everyone for their input, and would like to thank the teams out there that have shared theur designs.
DanLevin247
21-02-2003, 12:06
Magnasmific....I've got a question, how exaclty are those arms deployed? I mean, I can't see anything "driving" the arms from the pictures? Transfer of wieght maybe? Also, To my knowledge, you can't have a metal surface come in contact with the field...I hope you have some kind of plastic cap on the "feet" of the arm's final stage!
Alexander McGee
21-02-2003, 12:26
Originally posted by DanLevin247
Magnasmific....I've got a question, how exaclty are those arms deployed? I mean, I can't see anything "driving" the arms from the pictures? Transfer of wieght maybe? Also, To my knowledge, you can't have a metal surface come in contact with the field...I hope you have some kind of plastic cap on the "feet" of the arm's final stage!
the first stage of the arms are driven by a cable attached to the window motors. the second set is powered by globe motors, with a worm gear. The final stage is unpowered, except for a gas shock which allows for extra clearance of the plexiglass (not pictured in any photos), and gravity.
Also, on the bottom of the arms, its hard to see from the pictures, there are nylon fittings on all of the bottom of the legs. This eliminates the "hard contact with floor" rule.
Mark Garver
21-02-2003, 12:31
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
As always, team 68 has done an outstanding job! I come from a team where we take a very strict interpretation of the rules, so I have a few questions/comments:
1. Is there a non-metal/hard plastic material on the bottom of the outrigger legs? I am assuming those legs touch the carpet.
2. Are the outriggers inteded to push against the floor as to transfer weight to the outriggers?
3. If your answer to 2 is not yes, then it looks to me as if you are using the midfield barrier to gain an advantage. The rules referenced earlier in this post seem to address that issue.
As far as the pinning goes, I would be VERY suprised if a team got DQ'd for pinning you if your outriggers are reacting with the midfield barrier. Team 217's interpretation of the rule is that the midfield pipes are there to make it harder to cross the field. Any other use of the barrier is probably illegal.
The argument that you're not touching the barrier until someone pushes you is a pretty weak claim, because it is clear to me that you are straddling the midfield bar for a specific purpose.
Of course, please ignore number 3 if your answer to #2 is yes.
For what it's worth, I think you have an amazing design.
-Paul
We can create a downward force on the arms. This will allow us additional traction. As far as weight transfer goes... yes there will be "weight transfer".
There is a specially designed traction material that will be attached to the bottom of each of the legs.
Yan Wang
21-02-2003, 12:46
People, stop arguing over what rules the robot breaks or w/e. That's for the judges to decide. Saying all this now doesn't help as it's AFTER ship. It's more of an insult. It's a great LOOKING robot but till a regional, none of us except on team 68 will know how well it performs or whether the judges/refs will determine it to be perfectly legal.
Gadget470
21-02-2003, 12:55
I think some of the argument comes from teams that considered a limbo block from the HDPE but decided against it due to rule interpretation.
Just like the mousebots last year, many teams were upset by their use because they didn't build one because they interpreted the rules differently. Only a few teams made "LEGAL" tether's, most had a high chance of entanglement but were still given the OK.
f22flyboy
21-02-2003, 13:07
ramming by definition cannot be pinning. Ramming is using the power of the bot for repeated strikes. Pinning is using the bot to hold something against a fixed object
Ken Leung
21-02-2003, 13:12
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
As far as the pinning goes, I would be VERY suprised if a team got DQ'd for pinning you if your outriggers are reacting with the midfield barrier. Team 217's interpretation of the rule is that the midfield pipes are there to make it harder to cross the field. Any other use of the barrier is probably illegal.
The argument that you're not touching the barrier until someone pushes you is a pretty weak claim, because it is clear to me that you are straddling the midfield bar for a specific purpose.
For what it's worth, I think you have an amazing design.
-Paul
I said it in a reply once, and I will say it again... There's a fine line between intentionally using the 14" bar to block robot, and blocking a limbo bot with your robot in front of the bar because your robot won't fit in.
Consider these 3 scenario that involve the bar to block opponent robot:
1. Putting bins in front of the bar, so opponent robot can't go under because the bin is in the way,
2. Putting your 14"< robot in front of the bar, and even though the opponent robot could out push your robot, your robot will never fit under, thus blocking your opponent
3. extending an arm in front of the barrier and block the enemy robot because the bar is supporting it from behind.
Now, obviously the first scenario is legal, because they intentionally design the bar so bins won't fit under, and FIRST should've taken into account that robots will be blocked because of that. For the 2nd scenario, it should be legal also, because the opponent robot will be pinning your robot against a wall if they keep pushing.
As for the 3rd scenario, I agree with Paul that you may not use the 14" bar to make a part of your robot functional. If the bar isn't there, I doubt the arm will stop robot from going across. Sure, it is legal to use it when the arm isn't touching the barrier, which will happen when opponent robot sees that they can't go under when the arm is there. But as soon as the opponent robot touch the arm, and the arm use the 14" bar to react, then it will be illegal, at least that's the way I see it.
So, unless FIRST change the rule regarding robots reacting against field barriers, I honestly believe it is illegal to deploy such a device to block enemy robot, imho. Otherwise, it is unfair for teams who strictly follow the rules. If it was legal, a lot of robots would've use the bar to flip themselves over, or use the side barrier to lock themselves in place.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, because I believe this is one of the most creative idea I’ve ever seen this year…
Please ask FIRST about this, and show them the picture.
Joe Matt
21-02-2003, 13:17
Originally posted by Gadget470
I think some of the argument comes from teams that considered a limbo block from the HDPE but decided against it due to rule interpretation.
Just like the mousebots last year, many teams were upset by their use because they didn't build one because they interpreted the rules differently. Only a few teams made "LEGAL" tether's, most had a high chance of entanglement but were still given the OK.
I agree. Last year we had a nice design where a big piece of plastic that would be hard to run over and get entangled on would fall out, and more would flip out from the inside of that and so on untill we are in the scoring zone. But then we go to VCU and we find people who have wire shooting from their bot and then a robot PURPOSFULLY push a goal on our teather, now that ticks me off.
It's a fine line interpretation of the rule. This isn't really much different from a tall and long robot parking itself in front of the bar. You couldn't push it out of the way, in fact, you would be guilty of pinning the bot against the bar. I am gonna side with T3 in this case. The rule isn't really clear, and I don't think T3's design is impenetrable. As someone pointed out, I can see them being tipped by a wedge or getting tangled up in the deployment process. Nonetheless, they look like a formidable opponent.
Originally posted by Rook
It's a fine line interpretation of the rule. This isn't really much different from a tall and long robot parking itself in front of the bar. You couldn't push it out of the way, in fact, you would be guilty of pinning the bot against the bar. I am gonna side with T3 in this case. The rule isn't really clear, and I don't think T3's design is impenetrable. As someone pointed out, I can see them being tipped by a wedge or getting tangled up in the deployment process. Nonetheless, they look like a formidable opponent.
That's a very poor analogy. The tall robot has no option of where to go, therefore it's pinning. T3 can simply lift its arms up. They are in that position by choice, not by chance.
The question isn't whether they can be beat. Of course they can be beat. Nobody is unbeatable. That has been illustrated last year. The question at hand is whether or not they are in direct violation of the rules. I am sure many other teams have thought of this type of design, but went against it.
Paul Copioli
21-02-2003, 15:23
O.K., there is no need to get nasty. I know a few of the engineers on team 68 and believe me, they have a conscience.
The fact of the matter is that rule GM31's first sentance states:
"The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them"
It goes on to clarify that the midfield pipes are considered field barriers. We can argue over the wording, but the intent is clear - do not rely on the field borders to hold position.
That said, see the previous posts about the outriggers and their ability to transfer weight. My guess is that they transfer their weight to the outriggers and don't rely on the midfield barrier at all.
-Paul
Originally posted by Paul Copioli
O.K., there is no need to get nasty. I know a few of the engineers on team 68 and believe me, they have a conscience.
The fact of the matter is that rule GM31's first sentance states:
"The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them"
It goes on to clarify that the midfield pipes are considered field barriers. We can argue over the wording, but the intent is clear - do not rely on the field borders to hold position.
That said, see the previous posts about the outriggers and their ability to transfer weight. My guess is that they transfer their weight to the outriggers and don't rely on the midfield barrier at all.
-Paul
Paul, for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation and analysis exactly. I'm eager to see if FIRST clarifies this potential controversy.
68 - Great bot again!
As a member of another ramp-domination team I'm impressed with they way you guys accomplished it. To tell you the truth, we thought this was illegal during our brainstorming. I hope it works out for you guys...
See you in Houston.
Originally posted by Jnadke
That's a very poor analogy. The tall robot has no option of where to go, therefore it's pinning. T3 can simply lift its arms up. They are in that position by choice, not by chance.
The question isn't whether they can be beat. Of course they can be beat. Nobody is unbeatable. That has been illustrated last year. The question at hand is whether or not they are in direct violation of the rules. I am sure many other teams have thought of this type of design, but went against it.
It's still very gray to me. Let's take a look at five examples.
Robot 1: Is 25 inches high due to it's design and function, the team couldn't make it any lower. They decided going under the bar wasn't a big deal to them. The contact with the bar is not by design and it is incidental.
Robot 2: Is 25 inches high, with arms that extend out making a barrier. Their design has nothing that grabs onto the bar, but due to their height, you can't push them under it. The contact with the bar is intentional but incidental.
Robot 3: Is 13 inches high, but has a cylinder that extends to increase it's height. The cylinder has no other purpose but to prevent another robot from pushing it under the bar. The contact with the bar is by design AND intentional.
Robot 4: Is 13 inches high and has an arm used to pick up boxes. When the arm is extended it increases the height of the robot and prevents it from being pushed under the bar. If the arm is lowered, the robot is free to move under the bar. The contact with the bar is not by design and is incidental.
Robot 5: Is 13 inches high and has nothing to contact the bar at any time.
Robot 1 is a legal design. FIRST can't DQ a team because they chose not to go under the bar. Robot 1, isn't necessarily designed to block another robot, but in a match, it may have to.
Robot 2 is also legal. The robot was designed to block other robots. Because of it's height, the robot can not be pushed under the bar. It is not illegal to make a robot that can not clear the bar.
Robot 3 is illegal. The cylinder was designed to interact with the bar.
Robot 4 is not illegal, but if the arm is up, it can not be pushed under the bar. Does a team HAVE to let another robot push it around? My guess is this team will not be DQ if it used it's box picking arm to prevent it from being pushed under the bar. That is unless the arm itself had some kind of lip or hook to help it hold on. Then that would be illegal.
Robot 5 is of course legal.
I think T3's robot falls into the gray area between Robot 2 and Robot 3. If the bar didn't exist, then T3's design would be perfectly legal, but not quite as effective. This is definitely one for the judges. I understand those teams that see this as a violation. But even though T3 knows another robot will push them into the bar. Their contact is intended by design, but incidental. If nobody pushes them, then they are not interacting with the field. I think the rule is put in place to prevent damage to the field. I don't see T3's design as posing any particular kind of damage threat. T3's strategy is no different than building a robot 13 inches high and then welding a 5 inch bar on top just so another robot can't push it under. The only difference is T3 blocks the entire play field.
Paul Copioli
21-02-2003, 16:49
Your examples do not highlight the biggest part of the intent of the rule. Getting pushed around on the playing field and designing a robot to be immovable on the ramp (one big key this year) are 2 entirely different things. If a King of the Hill Bot uses the field borders to gain its immovability, then it is in violation of GM31. This is NOT incidental. It is intentional. 25 points and complete positional domination is gained by a method prohibited by rule GM31. I am inspector at 2 regionals this year and if I run across a robot designed like this, I will notify the head referee and get his or her opinion on the issue citing GM31.
However, I say again that I am willing to bet team 68 is pushing hard enough against the floor to make this a non-issue for them.
Time will tell...
Matt Attallah
21-02-2003, 16:59
Can we just let it go and say "nice robot?" The rules are there for the Judges/Refs to interpret, not us!
Nice robot from team 5!!!!
:D
I agree with Paul, while I think your design is interesting and will probably be effective, I also feel it violates the rules about field interaction. If your legs only had 1 pole one 1 side of the bar, I could say "While interaction with the field is likely, it doesn't look like it is central to their design". As it is now, it sure looks like all your strength will come from the bar...
Only time will tell :) and I do admire the design.
Greg
Originally posted by Lauren Bendes
As posted earlier our robot's arms dont actually touch anypart of the side bars or the plexiglass. The rule states to touch with the intent of supporting your robot and we have all of our support on the HDPE. We have taken into consideration many different aspects of contact and have cleared all of them. It will be okay...
Thanks for your concern.
Lauren
:D
This is a quote from an earlier part of the thread where they say they have all their weight on the HDPE. As for their imobility as King of the Hill. I see your point. But, I don't think that is the intent of their design. The design is intended to prevent other robots from going under the bar, or did I miss something? I wouldn't blame you for bringing this up at an inspection. I think the judges will let it slide though.
I just saw the thread where they say they can transfer weight to the arms. I don't know. Like I said, it's one for the judges. I hope they let it go. I want to see if our robot can beat it somehow. :D
Ken Leung
21-02-2003, 17:24
Originally posted by Rook
I just saw the thread where they say they can transfer weight to the arms. I don't know. Like I said, it's one for the judges. I hope they let it go. I want to see if our robot can beat it somehow. :D
I think the refs probably will let it go... Just because its a really creative idea, and also because a lot of the referees aren't that familiar with rules because they don't build robots like us (well, I can't say all refs because I happens to know quite a few who used to be on teams). I remember some incidents where the robot react against the field to make part of their robot functional, and it wasn't called on.
So, that's why I suggest Team 68 ask FIRST staff about this, because they know the rules the best. Why risk having the change out the device when you can think about it if you ask them now? I am not saying you will be asked to take it off, but its just much better to get a clarification as soon as possible.
I think FIRST better have a solid clarification about this, or it might develope into this year's "tether/mouse bot" issue. I would hate to see teams getting answers saying "no you are not allowed to..." and at National everyone put on a new arm (which I think will be unlikely) and block the ramp with it.
And even if they managed to lift up the whole robot onto those arms, they are still bounded to be pushed against the 14" bar when the opponent robot are stronger than they are...
I think people are worry about this not because they thing the 68 will be undefeatable... Its just because everyone put so many times chewing on the rules, figuring what's the best thing they can do while following the fules. Remember last year when FIRST change the rules regarding tethers? Its not something that can be easily forgetten.
Originally posted by Ken L
Remember last year when FIRST change the rules regarding tethers? Its not something that can be easily forgetten.
I remember that all too well. My team, Team 267, thought long and hard on how to make a tail within the rules, but then we get to the competition and everybody has mouse tethers, and tape measures. Hell, we could have done the same thing and saved us a headache.
Now, I know not to let this kind of stuff get on my nerves. 68 has a nice design, but it's not going to be too effective against our design. That is, we hope.
maybe its just me, but it seems like there's just enough space under those arms to let a robot with a low profile slip under them. Will the arms be useless against under-bar bots?
Raven_Writer
21-02-2003, 19:28
Originally posted by Matt Attallah
Can we just let it go and say "nice robot?" The rules are there for the Judges/Refs to interpret, not us!
Nice robot from team 5!!!!
:D
I second both things Matt said.
Scott Garver
21-02-2003, 19:36
Originally posted by Solace
maybe its just me, but it seems like there's just enough space under those arms to let a robot with a low profile slip under them. Will the arms be useless against under-bar bots?
No, as mentioned earlier there are friction pads at the ends of the first stage arm. This pad not only makes the robot harder to move but it also cuts the width, both from the robot to the pad and from the pad to the side down to less than 30in. Also, even if the pads were not there a robot would have to be less than 9in to pass under the arm.
Mark Garver
21-02-2003, 19:53
I must again state it was never the intent to stop robots.... The arms will be raised 90% of the time to allow other robots to run freely around the field. The other 10% of the time we will be unable to left our arms because of robots pushing against them and binding the hinge points, but we will be trying to left the arms if robots are trying to go under. At least that is our estimates on on percentages.
The robot itself should be next to imposible to move on the HDPE surface based on the "creative" traction material used on the drive train. If robots can move the drive train, they still have to deal with the out riggers on the HDPE and then if they break traction there, the outer arms pushing onto the carpet. There are a series of tractions that a robot will have to break through in order to pass over the ramp. The best bet is going under the bar, which our robot wasn't designed to stop. Everyone is looking at the arms in the wrong regard. However I will not be telling the purpose of the arms until the first regional, where you will see that they are not to trap or pin robots, nor act against the bar to be king of the hill... There is another advantage which hasn't been pointed out yet. Only time will tell!!
Mark Garver
21-02-2003, 20:17
Alex,
You have any pictures to post of the gearbox? I don't want you to post stats... however I would like some one to example how these interesting gearboxes run at the same speed, while having motors run opposite to each other... thank you Mr. Smith for showing us some real engineering and some real friction equations. It is amazing that they run at the same speed with out programming to help. Who doesn't like friction and gear ratios!!
Can't wait to see how the first 15 seconds go!!! I will be in there driving one of the spare robots over spring break. Watch out bro and alex, I might be taking over the drive team like in high school again :-)
It is somewhat obvious that the other advantage these arms have is that they can reach over the wall and knock over bins without moving out of the starting blocks. Nice design; very courageous design. I look forward to seeing it at GL and MW.
I call robots with this capability - DanG bots. This is because Dan Green from our team insisted that this was the best design to knock the bins over quickly and that we should have this type of design. I may lose my bet to him because of your unique design.
Raul
Mark Garver
21-02-2003, 20:23
Originally posted by Raul
It is somewhat obvious that the other advantage these arms have is that they can reach over the wall and knock over bins without moving out of the starting blocks. Nice design; very courageous design. I look forward to seeing it at GL and MW.
I call robots with this capability - DanG bots. This is because Dan Green from our team insisted that this was the best design to knock the bins over quickly and that we should have this type of design. I may lose my bet to him because of your unique design.
Raul
Well you are spilling the beans without Joe or Bill telling you their designs... :D For some reason I can see and another tank and swerve drive train coming out of Wildstang this year... See you GL!!
with those arms it looks like you could knock down opposing stacks without ever really leaving the ramp.....
I wanna see this robot go up against 179's bot...
SlamminSammy
21-02-2003, 22:54
This is not about specific rules, it is about the death of FIRST. I cannot explain the meaning of FIRST in words, but I know it is not about exploiting loopholes in the rules to win.
I am not jealous or angry: only saddened by this blatant act of weaseling.
Scott Garver
21-02-2003, 23:10
Originally posted by SlamminSammy
This is not about specific rules, it is about the death of FIRST. I cannot explain the meaning of FIRST in words, but I know it is not about exploiting loopholes in the rules to win.
I am not jealous or angry: only saddened by this blatant act of weaseling.
I am sorry that you feel that way. However when we came up with this idea it was not seen as a loophole in the rules. Yes we did realize that there were rules reguarding the midfield barrier, however every student and advisor unanamiously agreeded before we started building our robot, that our design did not violate any of these rules or the underlying purposes of these rules. Therefore I and the rest of the team would appreciate it if you did not look at us as "weasels" simply because we have a different way of thinking than you do.
SlamminSammy
21-02-2003, 23:20
Originally posted by Scott Garver
our design did not violate any of these rules or the underlying purposes of these rules
The Official Forums state:
The midfield bar was not intended to support or furnish a reaction surface for the robots. It is intended to demarcate the midfield and prevent containers from being slid from one side of the field to the other.
The underlying purpose of the bar is clearly stated here. They are not intended to be used as braces. You are using a loophole. My original comments stand.
Originally posted by SlamminSammy
The Official Forums state:
The underlying purpose of the bar is clearly stated here. They are not intended to be used as braces. You are using a loophole. My original comments stand.
he also stated that the purpose of the arms were not to block robots. perhaps if the true purpose was explained, it would kill all these negative attitudes running around.
Originally posted by Mark G
However I will not be telling the purpose of the arms until the first regional, where you will see that they are not to trap or pin robots, nor act against the bar to be king of the hill... There is another advantage which hasn't been pointed out yet. Only time will tell!!
Mark,
Let me see if I get it. A little guesswork combined with some visualization aided by a very tired mind yields the following explanation: the arms are not used for blocking robots at all - but they are used to block containers. The arms on the robot appear to be very cleverly designed to prevent any containers on one side of the field from moving to the opposite side of the field. Try to pass or throw one across the ramp, and the first stage can stop them. Try to pass or throw one over the side-field bars, and stage three is there to stop them (or at least slow them down a lot!).
Control the containers, and you control the game. At that point, there is no need to worry about where the robots are, and no need to impede their progress. In fact, given the formula for calculating QPs, it is to your advantage to let the opposing alliance robots go where ever they want (including on top of the ramp for the KOH points). So, not only does your robot not block the other robots, you probably actively move them out of the way to allow passage of their machines.
Thus, no conflict with the rules. No violation of M-7 or anything else.
Am I close? Actually, don't tell me. I want to wait and see this thing in action at one of the competitions! In the mean time, I am going to sit back and chill for a while. If you guys have done your jobs as efficiently and effectively as I suspect, then all this moaning and groaning about rules violations will be moot. If not, then we should all just let the folks at FIRST will do their jobs with regard to the rules determinations. All the kvetching on this forum (including all the predictions that FIRST will make the "wrong" call on the rules - whatever that means - before FIRST has even said one thing on this particular topic) will not, and SHOULD NOT, influence that process.
-dave
-----------------------------------------
Y = AX^2 + B.... ehhh, whatever
Gadget470
22-02-2003, 02:54
Well.. if stage 3 is not intended to impede robots or aide in king of the hill, why have it go all the way to the ground? If it's objective is to just block bins, then having it end just above the midfield barrier would prevent bins from passing. Remember, bins can't fit under the bar, robots can.
Oh? but if you are so far out even a decent push on a bin could start to spin you.. hmm well put something in to prevent that. If something hits it, be against teh midfield barrier.
Sorry, this is a sarcastic response to the answers given. 3am and I'm tired. I've already said my piece that it is a great looking, well made bot. I just think some rules are either going to be bent or stage 3 will need removed
Well I like to see the robot in action. I think it is a well designed robot. Though, it looks to me like at least SOME thought was put into blocking robots under the bar. Why else do the posts come down where they do? If they left an area wide enough for a standard sized robot to go under, then it would be a different story.
Except for a few poorly chosen comments by some. I don't see why we can't discuss this here. Team 68 posted the pic looking for input. Something we say may help them in their match. There's nothing wrong with a civil discussion, even when there is a dissagreement.
Well when i saw what 68 does i was amazed. It's a well thought out bot that's more than a step ahead of everyone else in their planning, construction, and strategy. Personally i have no problem with going up against a robot as such. but i have a feeling that when a robot (130lbs) travelling at 9 - 15 fps makes a bump against this robot strategy goes out the window.
I'd be sure you guys have backup wings for this thing.
If you didn't see a robot like this coming then don't whine about how it throws off your strategy. For Innovation and Rec.....
Good job 68!
Alexander McGee
22-02-2003, 11:22
Originally posted by Rook
Team 68 posted the pic looking for input. Something we say may help them in their match. There's nothing wrong with a civil discussion, even when there is a dissagreement.
this was our exact purpose. Thank you for keeping it at heart.
CHSRobotics03
22-02-2003, 12:27
Hey, I just want to make sure everyone knows that the purpose of showing you our robot was not to make people mad at us for "weasling" through the rules. We only wanted to show you because we are very proud of our robot, as everyone else is proud of their own. As stated several times before, we as an entire team- both students and engineers- discussed the rules and our design to exhaustion, making sure it was legal. For clarification, because there are still many people who do not fully understand why it does not break any rules or use any loopholes:
1. It does not come into contact with the midfield bar UNLESS another robot pushes against us. We are planning on this happening, and will be prepared to fix any damage resulting from it.
2. It does not touch the plexiglass.
3. There is nylon on the bottom of all the legs, so no hard surfaces touch the carpet- we won't cause field damage and will not be DQ'd for it.
4. It is NOT DESIGNED TO STOP BOTS! It is designed to limit the flow of bins from one side to the other, yes, we will use it to slow traffic from one side to another of bots, but our arms work independently.
5. It is NOT DESIGNED to keep us from spinning on the HDPE.
6. It is beatable, and we will be prepared to fix all damage- we will have enough extra parts to get through each competition.
Once again, we thank everyone for their input- it does help us in checking our work. However, blatant stabs at our team's character and behavior- classifying us into "non-gracious professionals" as well as "weasels" is not appreciated and NOT in the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is about helping each other GRACIOUSLY, and competing GRACIOUSLY, not putting others down for a design you disagree with. So in the future, it would be appreciated if those who do not wish to help us with your comments specifically on the robot and only wish to insult would keep those comments to yourselves. Thanks again to all of you who have contributed thoughtful discussion of our design.
Alexis
SlamminSammy
22-02-2003, 12:45
Originally posted by CHSRobotics03
However, blatant stabs at our team's character and behavior- classifying us into "non-gracious professionals" as well as "weasels" is not appreciated and NOT in the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is about helping each other GRACIOUSLY, and competing GRACIOUSLY, not putting others down for a design you disagree with. So in the future, it would be appreciated if those who do not wish to help us with your comments specifically on the robot and only wish to insult would keep those comments to yourselves. Thanks again to all of you who have contributed thoughtful discussion of our design.
I have nothing against your team--only your general strategy. A strategy I am sure multiple teams will have. My comments were directed at this strategy, not your team. I am still convinced you are using a loophole, but realize there is nothing you can do to change your robot. All I am saying is that for FIRST to achieve success, this strategy must be abandoned. Maybe next year....
Dan Richardson
22-02-2003, 12:47
When it comes to interpretation of rules, sometimes first does not make enough clarification on things, last year we felt the full brunt of " mis interpretation of the rules "
We had a solid aluminum tether ( or mini bot we called it ) that spanned 28 feet at any time someone could try to run over it for days and not get tangled in it.. and it was strong enough so when we ran over it with a pick up truck it didn't break, but something like that took up about 45 lbs on our bot in which we coulda used something better in a drivetrain , but some of these other teams use basically wires running with a motor and a wheel and ways like 4 lbs for the whole thing but could get entangled easily. We felt a general injustice about the whole ordeal because people started adding these little mouse bots and tape measures and getting same points for something really cheezy that we felt was against the rules.. but it comes to general mininterpretation of the rules, It even happens within the groups of judges and refs, some refs will enforce a rule more than another ( Ie damaging last years carpet ) it got trashed yet not many teams in my division ever got disqualified for it, just issued " warnings after the match "
Its almost like someone forget to send out the memo, clarification of rules has been a big problem in first for a little while now, Every team has the chance to be jipped because they designed for something exactly the way the rule is written and another team is gonna be better off because they bent the rules a little, its all up to refs interpretation
Now concerning team 68 , I don't feel that they violate any rules, also, if they get rammed and they touch the barrier, they will not get disqualified because they did not put themselves into that position the refs will realize that, neither will the refs disqualify the other bot for ramming them, because they said this will be a violent game prepare your robot for such, I think team 68 did an amazing job this year as always, and will be a tough competitor
I think they have a few weakeness that can be exploited by a few bots with certain types of arms and lifting devieces, what I havn't read yet is anybody mentioning holding their arm down, if you can't push their bot out of the way and get 25 points, why not hold the arm down to the floor and make it so they can't get it either just a thought, you have a great bot looks very powerful hopefully we'll see you at nationals
Andy Baker
22-02-2003, 13:47
to team 68: another year, another great bot from Truck Town. This is a design that many teams would love to have as a partner for their robot.
As for blocking a robot from "limboing" with an arm or with a robot body, I don't see the difference. I don't see the illegality of this... but then again, it is not up to me or any of us... it will be up to the referees.
Now... on another note... some people are being prett silly and possibly stupid in this thread and in others. Many teams have posted pictures of their robots on-line, and there are a number of people who quickly criticize something about the robot... or they say "we can beat that design".
My bet is that these same people will be saying "why didn't we get picked?" after a regional or at the Championships. They will say "we dominated our matches, but none of the top seeds picked us... why?" These teams need to remember that other teams have many choices of partners, and if all esle is equal, a picking team would rather not choose a team who has been publicly critical of their design. This is pretty simple logic, people.
Keep in mind that words can be harsh and people do not forget what is said against them. Please, for your teammates sake, keep your egos in check and try to use some tact and consideration.
Now, most of the replies are very tactful when they are questioning a teams' design... but some are simply stupid. Keep your heads.
Andy B.
Mark Garver
22-02-2003, 14:02
Originally posted by dlavery
Mark,
Let me see if I get it. A little guesswork combined with some visualization aided by a very tired mind yields the following explanation: the arms are not used for blocking robots at all - but they are used to block containers. The arms on the robot appear to be very cleverly designed to prevent any containers on one side of the field from moving to the opposite side of the field. Try to pass or throw one across the ramp, and the first stage can stop them. Try to pass or throw one over the side-field bars, and stage three is there to stop them (or at least slow them down a lot!).
Control the containers, and you control the game. At that point, there is no need to worry about where the robots are, and no need to impede their progress. In fact, given the formula for calculating QPs, it is to your advantage to let the opposing alliance robots go where ever they want (including on top of the ramp for the KOH points). So, not only does your robot not block the other robots, you probably actively move them out of the way to allow passage of their machines.
Thus, no conflict with the rules. No violation of M-7 or anything else.
Am I close? Actually, don't tell me. I want to wait and see this thing in action at one of the competitions! In the mean time, I am going to sit back and chill for a while. If you guys have done your jobs as efficiently and effectively as I suspect, then all this moaning and groaning about rules violations will be moot. If not, then we should all just let the folks at FIRST will do their jobs with regard to the rules determinations. All the kvetching on this forum (including all the predictions that FIRST will make the "wrong" call on the rules - whatever that means - before FIRST has even said one thing on this particular topic) will not, and SHOULD NOT, influence that process.
-dave
Dave I am not able to say this earlier before a competition. You may or may not be on the right track, but only time will tell. I want to point this out that this strategy was figured out only minutes after the broadcast. There are many ways to bet it... I wonder if that is why the arms were built to be taken off during some matches and use some other interesting device that was put in that shipping crate... just more food for thought!!
Alexander McGee
22-02-2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Mark G
I wonder if that is why the arms were built to be taken off during some matches and use some other interesting device that was put in that shipping crate... just more food for thought!!
now mark, don't be giving away all of our secrets now. :D
Mark Garver
22-02-2003, 14:17
Originally posted by Andy Baker
to team 68: another year, another great bot from Truck Town. This is a design that many teams would love to have as a partner for their robot.
As for blocking a robot from "limboing" with an arm or with a robot body, I don't see the difference. I don't see the illegality of this... but then again, it is not up to me or any of us... it will be up to the referees.
Now... on another note... some people are being prett silly and possibly stupid in this thread and in others. Many teams have posted pictures of their robots on-line, and there are a number of people who quickly criticize something about the robot... or they say "we can beat that design".
My bet is that these same people will be saying "why didn't we get picked?" after a regional or at the Championships. They will say "we dominated our matches, but none of the top seeds picked us... why?" These teams need to remember that other teams have many choices of partners, and if all esle is equal, a picking team would rather not choose a team who has been publicly critical of their design. This is pretty simple logic, people.
Keep in mind that words can be harsh and people do not forget what is said against them. Please, for your teammates sake, keep your egos in check and try to use some tact and consideration.
Now, most of the replies are very tactful when they are questioning a teams' design... but some are simply stupid. Keep your heads.
Andy B.
Andy, I must ask if you were getting at the team members of team 68 in your lastest reply; I am sorry if our team has upset you or others that have read this forum regarding our attitudes. It was never the intened purpose of any of our team members. We would like to thank you for your words of kindness about our over all design. It looks like we won't be seeing each other on the field until the Midwest Regional, however no promises that scouts(including myself) won't see you before that. :D
Mark Garver
22-02-2003, 14:19
Originally posted by magnasmific
now mark, don't be giving away all of our secrets now. :D
Come on... you know they are going to like that other "attachment" :D
I talked to my brother last night and I have got to see how great it works!!! See you in T minus 6 days. And maybe I will even have some eggs :-)
Andy Baker
22-02-2003, 14:27
Naaa... it wasn't you guys, Mark.
I see three types of criticism when a team posts pictures of their robot:
1. A post where someone gives constructive criticism, or something said that will actually help the team go through inspection or may help them clarify the legality of their design (for example, Paul's posts in this thread... he has his opinions, and he is sincerely trying to clarify the rules) These are good posts... and they should always be welcome (I'm reminded of the pneumatic cylinder discussion that happened 2 weeks ago... we were able to fix it before we shipped our 'bot)
2. A post where a person outright says that a deisgn or a method of play is not gracious... where they are passing judgement on another team just from a picture. This is pretty shallow and creates discord and strife between teams. This is not smart.
3. A post where someone simply says "we can beat that"... or "I definitely see problems with this design" and that's all that they say. This is simply stupid. Maybe their robot can beat the one which is pictured... they are really not gaining anything by posting these opinions... and if their robot is not as good, then they have egg on their face. I assume that the rest of their team regrets this person representing them on these forums.
I hope this clears up what I posted previously.
Andy B.
Originally posted by Andy Baker
Naaa... it wasn't you guys, Mark.
I see three types of criticism when a team posts pictures of their robot:
1. A post where someone gives constructive criticism, or something said that will actually help the team go through inspection or may help them clarify the legality of their design (for example, Paul's posts in this thread... he has his opinions, and he is sincerely trying to clarify the rules) These are good posts... and they should always be welcome (I'm reminded of the pneumatic cylinder discussion that happened 2 weeks ago... we were able to fix it before we shipped our 'bot)
2. A post where a person outright says that a deisgn or a method of play is not gracious... where they are passing judgement on another team just from a picture. This is pretty shallow and creates discord and strife between teams. This is not smart.
3. A post where someone simply says "we can beat that"... or "I definitely see problems with this design" and that's all that they say. This is simply stupid. Maybe their robot can beat the one which is pictured... they are really not gaining anything by posting these opinions... and if their robot is not as good, then they have egg on their face. I assume that the rest of their team regrets this person representing them on these forums.
I hope this clears up what I posted previously.
Andy B.
Andy,
I've been feeling the same way you have, and trying to find the words to express it. Thank you.
I hope everyone takes a good look at what Andy posted, and remembers it the next time they decide to comment on someone else's robot.
SlamminSammy
22-02-2003, 17:26
I have read and re-read all the rules and the answers from the official forums. After careful consideration I come to the conclusion that it all comes down to one question: Was using the mid-field bar as a brace intentional? You say no. I have no way to verify this, but also have no way to disprove it--so I will trust you. Therefore, I congratulate you on a truly innovative robot, but recommend that next time you ask FIRST's permission before you step into a grey area.
Scott Garver
22-02-2003, 17:34
Originally posted by Andy Baker
Keep in mind that words can be harsh and people do not forget what is said against them. Please, for your teammates sake, keep your egos in check and try to use some tact and consideration.
Now, most of the replies are very tactful when they are questioning a teams' design... but some are simply stupid. Keep your heads.
Andy B.
Thank you Andy I just hope that everyone reads that and takes it into consideration when they post their replies.
Gadget470
22-02-2003, 17:39
As I've said, it's a great looking bot. It's design is great and it's innovation is also. I would love to be paired with it, and hate to be against it.
I'm not doubting the skill or innovative capabilities of team 68. They've never, to my knowledge, tried to skirt the rules. They probably didn't try to here either. Problem is, they might have.
If the rule is interpretted to allow their bot to do this, so be it. They took a risk in making it because it's an interpretable rule. They may be asked to remove it.
I won't have hard feelings either way, it's out of everyone's hands and I think the 100+ posts on the subject, most saying the same thing, is pointless.
My fully personal feeling is the intent of the rule was to not have robots intentionally using the barrier for any purpose. Their's is that it is you may touch it but not break it.
Everyone is at a fork in the road. One path is legal, one is illegal, neither are labeled. They chose a path, we'll find out what one they took.
We'll see eventually, good luck 68.
Ken Leung
22-02-2003, 18:29
Originally posted by Gadget470
We'll see eventually, good luck 68.
Yup, I want to say Good luck to 68 too. Hopefully FIRST will give its answer before competition start, and I really want to see FIRST allowing this robot to compete in the game.
If you don't have the patience to read all the posts in this thread, just take a look at Paul and Andy's posts. I believe all of us agree that we should wait and see what happens, and this discussion end here for now.
Some one please record a short video footage of this robot at regionals, and post a link in here to show us what its like when they dominate the ramp! Don't make me fly out to their regional!
I apollogize for attacking your team. You guys have a very nice robot, and I am sure you have very good reasons for doing what you did.
You had a very, very good robot last year. I hope you do just as well this year.
Good luck! (Don't break down too much!)
Stephen P
23-02-2003, 10:36
I may be wrong, but i think you're not allowed to have any metal contact with the carpet. You may want to put something on the end of the tubing that blocks the alleys cause that would be metal contact.
Scott Garver
23-02-2003, 10:57
Originally posted by Stephen P
I may be wrong, but i think you're not allowed to have any metal contact with the carpet. You may want to put something on the end of the tubing that blocks the alleys cause that would be metal contact.
We already have plastic ends on the 3rd stage of the arm, thanks for your concern though.
Mimi Brown
23-02-2003, 11:14
I just gotta say...awsome bot;) I just wish we were gonna be at a regional with you guys so i could see it in action
Mark Garver
23-02-2003, 12:35
Originally posted by magnasmific
better view of the second and third stage arms
Let me guess... Rory is the hand in this picture, Denny is the guy with his hands on his hips and Alex is the guy standing on the ramp? Man at first glance I missed Nick sitting on the side rail
O no!! who is driving that thing? O thats right the drivers aren't needed at all... :eek:
All I have to say is, this design must have Denny worried.
Yan Wang
23-02-2003, 12:44
I've already posted this in this thread, but as your team doesn't want to stop (no offense, maybe you didn't read it the first time), read it again:
I can tell a lot of teams will be starting to upload teasers and other images of their robots soon.
PLEASE upload these to the picture gallery, rather than attaching to a post. I'd rather have apache handle serving the images, rather than mysql. The database backup process also thanks you.
Once your image is approved (shouldn't take a long time to get approved) you can then reference the image in the gallery with vbCode [IMG ] tags. You either have the choice of starting a thread in 'Robot Showcase', to show your robot -- OR -- let someone start a discussion via the picture gallery.
Thanks,
Brandon
Originally posted by monsieurcoffee
I've already posted this in this thread, but as your team doesn't want to stop (no offense, maybe you didn't read it the first time), read it again:
It's also been posted to "Let the Moderators, do the Moderating."
Alexander McGee
23-02-2003, 17:36
Originally posted by Mark G
All I have to say is, this design must have Denny worried.
nah, i dont think denny is worried. this picture was taken while we were discussing strategy, and of course, he is always thinking.
That is a nice looking robot you have there. It should be fun to compete against you. It would also be very interesting. The question I have for you is, what is it made of? cause it looks like you'd have trouble making weight.
Awsome bot!! You guys worked really hard!!
I can't wait to face you guys in nationals, we have a little something that will keep the bar open for us. We just put this fork underneath your arms and lift, bam instant room.
Its a dual use device!
Alexander McGee
23-02-2003, 20:19
Originally posted by Pin Man
The question I have for you is, what is it made of? cause it looks like you'd have trouble making weight.
t6 aluminum tubing. and thats the funny part. we were way underweight this year, it didn't seem to make sense, a t3 bot, actually underweight??
lol
Jonathan M.
23-02-2003, 20:30
What an outstanding Robot. I don't think I even need to wish you guys luck. But good luck anyway. *bows*
Great work... 'nuff said.
Mark Garver
24-02-2003, 02:50
Originally posted by magnasmific
t6 aluminum tubing. and thats the funny part. we were way underweight this year, it didn't seem to make sense, a t3 bot, actually underweight??
lol
The part that I find funny is what do thoughs arms weigh? about 45 pounds for the set is all. Amazing what a little engineering can pull off. My only fear is that concept number 2 is also 45 pounds or less. Can't wait to see!!
David Bridge
24-02-2003, 19:45
I won't waste time bickering over rules, whatever happens with DQs and such happens. This robot is definately a thoughtful design, I give you credit. I just spent over an hour reading all of the posts here and in the picture gallery. The general concensus I have found is that other teams feel threatened by this robot's potential. People keep talking about how they hope they are not paired against it. As a member of a competitive team, I for one can't wait to be paired against Truck Town and see how The Bobcat 2003 (Team 177) matches up.
Good luck in your competitions.
PS- Check out The Bobcat in the picture gallery
Raven_Writer
24-02-2003, 19:49
I agree with what David said about the rules. If it happens, it happens. Then they learn to not do it the next time. It's a matter of trusting guts or thoughts.
WakeZero
24-02-2003, 19:50
Originally posted by David Bridge
I won't waste time bickering over rules, whatever happens with DQs and such happens. This robot is definately a thoughtful design, I give you credit. I just spent over an hour reading all of the posts here and in the picture gallery. The general concensus I have found is that other teams feel threatened by this robot's potential. People keep talking about how they hope they are not paired against it. As a member of a competitive team, I for one can't wait to be paired against Truck Town and see how The Bobcat 2003 (Team 177) matches up.
Good luck in your competitions.
PS- Check out The Bobcat in the picture gallery
Oh, my mouth is already watering with possible matches against them... I love strategy :D
Speaking of which, last year I had several strategies to beat 60 but I never got to use them because we always paired with them! Hehe, not that I regret it, I just love good competition :rolleyes:
See you in AZ Truck Town Terr.... errrr, Thunder! It is always fun with you guys ;)
jalee1011
25-02-2003, 09:42
hmmmm.... I see the beauty and style of this bot however- how could is the driver to position the robot correctly on the hill? What happens if a robot is powerful enough to ram you? then wouldnt your arms break?
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.