We're really not that mean.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST



I know I don't have to do this, but I feel that we as a team need to explain ourselves a little bit.

A little birdy told me that more than a few people didn't quite like our robot design, and thought that our TKO boxing theme was not within the spirit of FIRST. I heard that various people thought that we designed our robot to only beat up everyone else's. Well, I'm here to tell you, that is not true.

Here was our thinking: we saw the puck at kickoff, and we instantly thought that FIRST wanted more contact between the robots. So, we gave them what they wanted... action. I was suprised that more teams didn't go down this design road.

We never wanted to hurt anyone's machine, we just wanted to keep our opponents off the puck and from raising their floppies.

After we did not do very well in Chicago, we watched the elimination rounds. We saw VERY good basket lifters getting on the puck and playing defense. I thought that was a waste of many good basket lift designs.

We saw our niche. We got rid of our basket design and went for puck control. We wanted to be the team that everyone wanted as their partner in the finals.

Hopefully, we didn't tick anyone off too bad. If so, let me know, and I'll buy you a Coke also.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/28/99 7:57 PM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



I won't retype Andy’s whole message, but it also applies for my team. T-192 didn't play to break other robots, we played to keep them from scoring. Besides, the game this year was begging for more contact between robots (i.e. holding baskets down, etc) and we expected that to be a trend. In fact, during the design stage we rejected many design drafts as they were 'too flimsy'. Turns out we were almost alone on that. I was surprised to see tons of leaning towers of sizzor lift, PVC baskets, and other low-load-bearing structures. It was completely not in our intent to break any piece of any robot we played. And as for our playing style, if you saw the Benji-bot demo, you’ll know we dwelt strictly within the limitations that were so clearly set. Please don’t hate us! I’ll extend the same coke offer… =)

G-Force loves you!!!
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:10 PM MST


In Reply to: Hear Hear, and same over here... posted by Daniel on 4/28/99 7:57 PM MST:



Dont' feel too bad. When we did the design process, we expected lot's of people like you guys, and used the same gearing on our lift as last year. (almost an identical design) We had enough power to take our basket, 10 floppies, and about 50 - 80 more pounds ontop of that. But it was slow. (ok, 12 secs from full down to full up wasn't that slow). Seeing we didn't have a need for that kind of power, we swapped our gearing ratios on our lift. (and ran outta time, our robot arrived in flordia with the wheels in a toolbox.)

We were ready for ya, but we didn't need it.

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Hear Hear, and same over here... posted by Daniel on 4/28/99 7:57 PM MST:



People do feel bad when they see their robots knocked apart because they put so much work into them, but that was just part of this year's game. There was more contact just by the nature of the competition this year, but that type of interaction made the matches exciting to watch. Teams such as G-Force were very attractive as alliance partners because they could defend the puck. That is why our team picked them. During our last finals match G-Force took a beating too.

Teams who designed their robots as defensive only took a risk. If their qualifying points were not real high they might not be noticed as an ally.

I would much rather see the type of interaction this year than the type there was in 1995. In 30-45 seconds, the fastest team got to the top of the ramp, clamped on and racked up points for over a minute. Many matches were a yawn.

[archiver]

Posted by Eric gargus, Student on team #217, Team Macomb, from Armada High School and Ford and Fraser.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:44 PM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



It may be true that some people didn't like you guys. I will admit that, I for one didn't like you guys from the minute I saw your bot in Chicago. I assumed that you were out to destroy other bots and were not in the spirit of FIRST.

But my narrow minded thinking was changed after I starting talking on ICQ and made a friend (Who knows who he is and better not forget he owes me a coke, :-) LOL).
This friend was not at all what I expected a TechnoKat (let alone a TechnoKat Coach) to be like. I was expecting a horrible monster out to destroy the spirit of FIRST and to damage my teams poor defenseless bot. What I found was a fun loving guy who appreciates FIRST as much as anyone. He made me think about it from another point of view and I realized that they were just taking a different approach to the game.

So congradulations to the TechnoKats on a great year. I for one think you guys had some guts to go the route you did. You guys are great and I can't wait to compete against you next year.

Eric Gargus

P.S. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone else that a little bird would tell the TechnoKats of there 'reputation'? I thought Kats ate birds? Seems that I'm not the only one who changed his feathers about the Kats.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/29/99 6:42 AM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



Our robot had a couple of hooks on the arm to keep other teams from raising their baskets. We needed to use them in the match against the HOT team and John Deere. We needed to keep the John Deere machine from raising to win. We did keep them from raising, but in the process, John Deere's basket broke as they were trying to lift it. Then they tipped over trying to get away from us. We won the match but we weren't happy with the carnage it caused.

After the match we had to withstand some booing from the crowd that thought we attacked the other team (which is actually far from the truth). We also had to withstand a protest, which the judges quickly ruled against. Anyway, it made us feel like we were becoming disliked. The worst part is that the John Deere team was our pit neighbor, so it made things pretty tense for a while until we patched things up with them. In the end, they weren't mad at us, but I don't know about the HOT team.

-Chris


: I know I don't have to do this, but I feel that we as a team need to explain ourselves a little bit.

: A little birdy told me that more than a few people didn't quite like our robot design, and thought that our TKO boxing theme was not within the spirit of FIRST. I heard that various people thought that we designed our robot to only beat up everyone else's. Well, I'm here to tell you, that is not true.

: Here was our thinking: we saw the puck at kickoff, and we instantly thought that FIRST wanted more contact between the robots. So, we gave them what they wanted... action. I was suprised that more teams didn't go down this design road.

: We never wanted to hurt anyone's machine, we just wanted to keep our opponents off the puck and from raising their floppies.

: After we did not do very well in Chicago, we watched the elimination rounds. We saw VERY good basket lifters getting on the puck and playing defense. I thought that was a waste of many good basket lift designs.

: We saw our niche. We got rid of our basket design and went for puck control. We wanted to be the team that everyone wanted as their partner in the finals.

: Hopefully, we didn't tick anyone off too bad. If so, let me know, and I'll buy you a Coke also.

: Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



If you read the rules they say that strategies aimed at intentional tipping of robots are NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF FIRST.
You guys clearly used tipping as a strategy and clearly designed your robot to do that. I would contend that the refs made a big mistake allowing this type of strategy to be used.
I hope FIRST is listening.

Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/30/99 8:20 AM MST


In Reply to: Not mean but in violation posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST:



You say the Kokomo robot was built to intentionally tip other robots? “Clearly”? Please explain. I see no forklifts...

All I see is a highly versatile arm that can be used to push robots away from the puck, hold down baskets, and even to pick up floppies (if they had chosen that rout). Besides, I've never seen Kokomo intentionally tip a robot. When did you see this?

Just 'cuz a robot has the potential to abuse the rules, doesn't mean it does.

Perhaps I should just let Andy respond to this message, he knows better than I do. But just for fun I challenge you to challenge the principle behind the G-Force robot. That's more in my league.

Think about it this way, why would a team build their whole robot to conflict with a rule *intentionally*. Seems like suicide to me...6 weeks of sleep deprivation just to get DQed? Naw, nobody's that out of wack ;-)


Let me know if you’ve got any problems with G-Force…
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 4/30/99 8:30 AM MST


In Reply to: Not mean but in violation posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST:



I can only speak about what I saw, and I did not see TKO use tipping as a strategy in the (admittedly few) matches that I saw. There appeared to be about 20 or so robots at nationals with strong, articulated arms that could be used for defense as well as scoring. Like Andy, I was surprised that so many teams had lift mechs that could only be used for lifting floppies straight up. The defensive capabilities that robots like ours (The Bobcat) and TKO had because of their articulated arms made for much more exciting matches. If any of you saw our first match in the elimination round, you know what I mean. Our drivers used the Bobcat's arm to pull a robot off of the puck (tipping it in the process) and were then able to climb on with seconds left for a big win. We lost the next two, but that's a different story.

As far as asking FIRST to listen, they already are. We were awarded the Power to Simplify award largely because of the extreme multifunctionality of the Bobcat's arm. I can't vouch for TKO, but I know that our strategy was not to tip other robots, because it was not legal. If it had been, robots like TKO, The Bobcat, and R.A.G.E. to name a few would have been nearly unstoppable (obviously we weren't :^)) because I don't think that there were many robots in the competition that we couldn't tip over if we felt like it.

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 4/30/99 2:56 PM MST


In Reply to: I disagree - Robots with arms unite! posted by P.J. Baker on 4/30/99 8:30 AM MST:



: I can only speak about what I saw, and I did not see TKO use tipping as a strategy in the (admittedly few) matches that I saw. There appeared to be about 20 or so robots at nationals with strong, articulated arms that could be used for defense as well as scoring. Like Andy, I was surprised that so many teams had lift mechs that could only be used for lifting floppies straight up. The defensive capabilities that robots like ours (The Bobcat) and TKO had because of their articulated arms made for much more exciting matches. If any of you saw our first match in the elimination round, you know what I mean. Our drivers used the Bobcat's arm to pull a robot off of the puck (tipping it in the process) and were then able to climb on with seconds left for a big win. We lost the next two, but that's a different story.

: As far as asking FIRST to listen, they already are. We were awarded the Power to Simplify award largely because of the extreme multifunctionality of the Bobcat's arm. I can't vouch for TKO, but I know that our strategy was not to tip other robots, because it was not legal. If it had been, robots like TKO, The Bobcat, and R.A.G.E. to name a few would have been nearly unstoppable (obviously we weren't :^)) because I don't think that there were many robots in the competition that we couldn't tip over if we felt like it.

At the Kennedy Space Center Regional, the Heatwave team was DQed for
grabbing the Space Coast team's robot and pulling it off the puck and
tipping it over. The rules must have changed between Kennedy & National.
Amazingly, the Space Coast just hit the gas and righted their robot.
But Heatwave still got the DQ. Bravo, Space Coast!

Mrs. Trax (Meg's Mom)

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 4/30/99 5:56 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I disagree - Robots with arms unite! posted by Andrew Trax on 4/30/99 2:56 PM MST:



I am quoting the rules here, 'intentional tipping is not in the spirit of FIRST'. If you design a robust arm which can tip and destroy other people's baskets, then you are not in alignment with the spirit of FIRST. Think about it, how would you draw the line on a mechanism? We were contemplating putting a 'stabilizer' on our robot which would retract. It might also get under another teams robot and tip it over when we lifted it back up.
My interpretation of the intent of the rules was that if a robot fell over as another team was trying to climb the puck then OK. But if a team used its' arm to intentionally tip over another robot then that's not OK. I think we need some clarification form FIRST on this. It seems that at some regionals the refs were DQing teams which flipped other robots, well they didn't in Florida, why?
Let me pose this question: how many teams did you see with an arm which could be used to tip over another robot? Most teams probably thought that a robust arm would be useless for floppy raising, and obviously a robust arm would have another intended purpose. (Floppies aren't that heavy). Let's get real if you had a robust arm, and you pushed on another robots' high point, you are intentionally tipping it. As was explained, if you were battling for the puck, and one of the robots fell as a result, that would be OK.
I take that to mean that if you tip over another robot to get on the puck you violate the tipping rule. My girlfriend who is relatively unaware of the fine points of the contest, could not believe that the robots were being pulled over and ripped apart at the nationals. In one match that we were in, the opposing alliance reached out with its' floppy picker and pulled our partners' robot off the puck by its' basket. Then kept pulling until the entire assembly was mangled. I have a photo of the aftermath if anyone is interested.


2 cents

Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.

Posted on 4/30/99 8:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Check this out posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 5:56 PM MST:



Hey,

Well, my team has one of those robust arms that could be used for many purposes, several of which could be used to hold down robots and pull them/the puck. In one match when we were against team 309 and the hot bot, we failed to gain control of the puck, so we went after the floppy carrier and held his basket down. Now, by the end of the match, his basket was pretty mangled, but not by us. After we had hooked 309's basket, we had formed a T with us being the bottom part of the T. 309 preceded to run and manuver, but I was able to keep up with him. One manuver put us right behind him, which twisted his basket and our arm. With about 10 secoends left to go, they managed to get away, but were re-hooked as they were driving away as I tried to pull them back, which resulted in the tipping over of 309, not intentally.

The point of all of that was to show that alot of the times damage caused by such arms is not always caused by the team with the arm, but the robot being effected by the arm. In this case, 309 could have tried to lower their basket since they were trying to put it up for the entire time they were hooked, or simply sit still. I know most people will look at those suggestions and think that they are very impractical, but look at the options, you can either move away from the robot that poses a threat to you, or just sit there and not risk killing your machine. In the case of 309, they would have retained all of their floppies instead of tipping and loosing several of their floppies. I know that there is a chance that you can get away, such as we did in the match before. An immobile robot hooked us and was pulled over by his own hook in our attempt to get away, but with getting our own robot damaged.

Not all of time is it the robot with the arm's fault. Many times accidents like that can be prevented, and if you don't try to prevent them, you should be ready to accept the risks involved with it, such as we did.

Dave


: I am quoting the rules here, 'intentional tipping is not in the spirit of FIRST'. If you design a robust arm which can tip and destroy other people's baskets, then you are not in alignment with the spirit of FIRST. Think about it, how would you draw the line on a mechanism? We were contemplating putting a 'stabilizer' on our robot which would retract. It might also get under another teams robot and tip it over when we lifted it back up.
: My interpretation of the intent of the rules was that if a robot fell over as another team was trying to climb the puck then OK. But if a team used its' arm to intentionally tip over another robot then that's not OK. I think we need some clarification form FIRST on this. It seems that at some regionals the refs were DQing teams which flipped other robots, well they didn't in Florida, why?
: Let me pose this question: how many teams did you see with an arm which could be used to tip over another robot? Most teams probably thought that a robust arm would be useless for floppy raising, and obviously a robust arm would have another intended purpose. (Floppies aren't that heavy). Let's get real if you had a robust arm, and you pushed on another robots' high point, you are intentionally tipping it. As was explained, if you were battling for the puck, and one of the robots fell as a result, that would be OK.
: I take that to mean that if you tip over another robot to get on the puck you violate the tipping rule. My girlfriend who is relatively unaware of the fine points of the contest, could not believe that the robots were being pulled over and ripped apart at the nationals. In one match that we were in, the opposing alliance reached out with its' floppy picker and pulled our partners' robot off the puck by its' basket. Then kept pulling until the entire assembly was mangled. I have a photo of the aftermath if anyone is interested.

:
: 2 cents

: Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/30/99 9:40 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Check this out posted by Dave on 4/30/99 8:27 PM MST:



I want to add to what Dave said.

We built a very robust arm for one main reason: simplicity of design. Why should we design a pole grabber, something to keep a basket down, a floppy-picker-upper, a robot pusher, and a robot puller with different mechanisms? All of this functionality could be incorporated in one arm, if it is made robust enough. This is what we chose to do. We got all of that functionality with only one motor and one air cylinder. It took other teams up to 4 motors to get that functionality.

-Chris


: Hey,
:
: Well, my team has one of those robust arms that could be used for many purposes, several of which could be used to hold down robots and pull them/the puck. In one match when we were against team 309 and the hot bot, we failed to gain control of the puck, so we went after the floppy carrier and held his basket down. Now, by the end of the match, his basket was pretty mangled, but not by us. After we had hooked 309's basket, we had formed a T with us being the bottom part of the T. 309 preceded to run and manuver, but I was able to keep up with him. One manuver put us right behind him, which twisted his basket and our arm. With about 10 secoends left to go, they managed to get away, but were re-hooked as they were driving away as I tried to pull them back, which resulted in the tipping over of 309, not intentally.

: The point of all of that was to show that alot of the times damage caused by such arms is not always caused by the team with the arm, but the robot being effected by the arm. In this case, 309 could have tried to lower their basket since they were trying to put it up for the entire time they were hooked, or simply sit still. I know most people will look at those suggestions and think that they are very impractical, but look at the options, you can either move away from the robot that poses a threat to you, or just sit there and not risk killing your machine. In the case of 309, they would have retained all of their floppies instead of tipping and loosing several of their floppies. I know that there is a chance that you can get away, such as we did in the match before. An immobile robot hooked us and was pulled over by his own hook in our attempt to get away, but with getting our own robot damaged.

: Not all of time is it the robot with the arm's fault. Many times accidents like that can be prevented, and if you don't try to prevent them, you should be ready to accept the risks involved with it, such as we did.

: Dave

:
: : I am quoting the rules here, 'intentional tipping is not in the spirit of FIRST'. If you design a robust arm which can tip and destroy other people's baskets, then you are not in alignment with the spirit of FIRST. Think about it, how would you draw the line on a mechanism? We were contemplating putting a 'stabilizer' on our robot which would retract. It might also get under another teams robot and tip it over when we lifted it back up.
: : My interpretation of the intent of the rules was that if a robot fell over as another team was trying to climb the puck then OK. But if a team used its' arm to intentionally tip over another robot then that's not OK. I think we need some clarification form FIRST on this. It seems that at some regionals the refs were DQing teams which flipped other robots, well they didn't in Florida, why?
: : Let me pose this question: how many teams did you see with an arm which could be used to tip over another robot? Most teams probably thought that a robust arm would be useless for floppy raising, and obviously a robust arm would have another intended purpose. (Floppies aren't that heavy). Let's get real if you had a robust arm, and you pushed on another robots' high point, you are intentionally tipping it. As was explained, if you were battling for the puck, and one of the robots fell as a result, that would be OK.
: : I take that to mean that if you tip over another robot to get on the puck you violate the tipping rule. My girlfriend who is relatively unaware of the fine points of the contest, could not believe that the robots were being pulled over and ripped apart at the nationals. In one match that we were in, the opposing alliance reached out with its' floppy picker and pulled our partners' robot off the puck by its' basket. Then kept pulling until the entire assembly was mangled. I have a photo of the aftermath if anyone is interested.

: :
: : 2 cents

: : Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Adam, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells/ UTC.

Posted on 4/30/99 9:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Check this out posted by Chris on 4/30/99 9:40 PM MST:



Bravo Chris.
Team 177 also saw advantages to the arm, mostly that we have used it before in the last 2 competitions before this one. It gives us many advantages, such as if our wheel pullup mechanism broke, we can get on the puck by using our arm to push us up. It worked great for allowing us to extend our floppy grabbers to the human player when the puck or a robot blocked the way. After the proven benefits from the last two years, Number 1 seed, national quality award, and 4rth place in terriod terror, why shouldnt my team use the arm design?

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 4/30/99 10:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Check this out posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 5:56 PM MST:



first off the contest is over so there is no need for clarification from first and second off arms have huge adantages over baskets: the are much stronger than baskets, the lift quicker, they hold baskets down, the can be used to move around the puck, the can right a tipped machine, they can gather and hold floppies (ours could hold over ten). these are all clearly legal things too do plus they can do those 'borderline' legal things such as pulling robots off the puck. as for making it robust maybe peeps who make arms just take pride in making something that isn't a piece of crap and that won't get easily destroyed, like many bags did, in the heat of battle.

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/1/99 6:04 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Check this out posted by Jacob Etter on 4/30/99 10:03 PM MST:



In defense of baskets with lifts....
We had a 4 to 5 second lift to 8'+ for our basket. You have to admit there were
just about as many flimsy arms snapping off as there were baskets swaying
and breaking. I saw a few arms holding floppies and another robot would
bump into them and the floppies would fall off. With the basket, the
floppies stayed where they were put.

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/1/99 9:17 AM MST


In Reply to: Arm vs Basket posted by Andrew Trax on 5/1/99 6:04 AM MST:



G-Force has an arm that picks up and lifts a basket. Best of both worlds? =)

Besides, a well built arm can do more than a well built basket. The ones that were breaking off were just not built all too well.


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/1/99 9:44 AM MST


In Reply to: How 'bout both? posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 9:17 AM MST:



I saw yours and it was a great idea. And you got my vote for creative
approach to the game.

Mrs. T


: G-Force has an arm that picks up and lifts a basket. Best of both worlds? =)

: Besides, a well built arm can do more than a well built basket. The ones that were breaking off were just not built all too well.

:
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/1/99 7:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: How 'bout both? posted by Andrew Trax on 5/1/99 9:44 AM MST:



Thanks! We tried to think of a way to have an arm AND a basket without having an elevator. We knew it would be wasting motors and other materials to do two separate systems for that. Anyway, we were really happy about how it ended up.

By the way, you make me really happy. My main goal for the team this year was to get noticed. So that GRT wouldn't be just another team, but the team that made G-Force. It's my last year and I wanted to go out with a bang. It's great to hear stuff like that =)


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:30 AM MST


In Reply to: Thanks! posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 7:16 PM MST:



Hey! It was pretty much the same type of decision for our crew. We had
a great chassis, lift & basket and opted to not ship the arm for the same reasons.

When you get to college, be sure to hook up with or start another team.
We should all have a passion for something constructive. The high schools
that get all you guys as mentors will be very lucky.

Mrs. Trax

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/2/99 12:00 PM MST


In Reply to: You're Welcome! posted by Andrew Trax on 5/2/99 7:30 AM MST:



Expect a competitive team from UC Berkeley next year. If we get Stanford in there too we'll have some nice rivalry =)

See you next year. In Florida =)

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/2/99 12:10 PM MST


In Reply to: I plan too posted by Daniel on 5/2/99 12:00 PM MST:



Hey look! I'm going into the third most prestigious mechanical engineering program in the nation and I can't even spell 'to'!

I've got me some mad skills... ;-)

-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 5/1/99 2:18 PM MST


In Reply to: How 'bout both? posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 9:17 AM MST:



We had both an arm and a basket. I'll be posting pictures soon so everyone can see.

-Chris


: G-Force has an arm that picks up and lifts a basket. Best of both worlds? =)

: Besides, a well built arm can do more than a well built basket. The ones that were breaking off were just not built all too well.

:
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/1/99 3:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Us too posted by Chris on 5/1/99 2:18 PM MST:



Chris,

There's a pic of your bot at the Woburn Robotics website. The link's below.

It looks like a nice layout. I'm not sure how much some of that PVC would withstand though. Seems like that stuff will crack in even the slightest pushing matches. Did you have any problems with that?


Check it out...
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.

Posted on 5/1/99 4:08 PM MST


In Reply to: Nice bot posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 3:03 PM MST:



Hey,
Actually, we never had a problem with the pvc, but we did have problems with the plexiglass pieces in the arm. After fighting off a couple of robots with it, it started to crack.

Dave


: Chris,

: There's a pic of your bot at the Woburn Robotics website. The link's below.

: It looks like a nice layout. I'm not sure how much some of that PVC would withstand though. Seems like that stuff will crack in even the slightest pushing matches. Did you have any problems with that?

:
: Check it out...
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 5/1/99 11:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Arm vs Basket posted by Andrew Trax on 5/1/99 6:04 AM MST:



I'm sorry if peeps misunderstood what i was saying, i don't think that basketw are a bad design, the national champ used a basket, what i was trying to say is that there is notrhing wrong with building anyhting robustly, arm or basket, mr wibble seemed to indicate that building a robust arm was not within the spirit of first and i didn't agree with that, sorry to those i offended

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/1/99 7:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Arm vs Basket posted by Jacob Etter on 5/1/99 11:58 AM MST:



Here is a link to a picture of the Bobcat, perhaps the only robot in the competition that could hold all 10 floppies without a basket

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/1/99 7:48 AM MST


In Reply to: Check this out posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 5:56 PM MST:



Tom,

I believe that all 10 floppies weigh about as much as one of the balls from last year. The weight of the floppies did actually give us a problem with our wrist that kept a couple of our team members up all night before we shipped the Bobcat to the Hartford regional.

You wrote 'If you design a robust arm which can tip and destroy other people's baskets, then you are not in alignment with the spirit of FIRST.' Once again, I must say that I disagree. To me, no matter what your robot can do, gracious professionalism should guide us to not use it maliciously. I don't feel that to run away and hide from good technology is inspirational at all, nor do I feel that it is in the spirit of FIRST. I am extremely proud of the tremendous robot that Bobcat Robotics delivered to the competition this year (BTW -C.H.A.O.S. is also tremendous). I am equally proud of the way that our coaches and drivers used the robot in their matches. There were several robots that needed repairs after tangling with the Bobcat this year, but it was not because we tried to break them, it was because we built a very robust robot that could initiate and withstand a lot of contact fighting for the puck. I really feel that our design was in the spirit of FIRST for that reason. I am sorry if you feel differently.

One further note. There is one robot that stands out in my mind as having the ability to tip robots. It is the great machine built by team #68. FIRST recognized this great robot with the Motorola Quality Award at Nationals. Once again, I think FIRST has sent a clear message about the type of robot they preferred to see at the competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:56 AM MST


In Reply to: Trust yourself with technology, don't hide from it posted by P.J. Baker on 5/1/99 7:48 AM MST:



I have got to admit it, your team is one that we look up to. You have a great team, with a good robot this year. When I saw your robot in Hartford this year I thought that you simply adapted last year's design to this year's game. You had a killer machine last year, and applying that basic desgn to this year's game I thought was a unique approach. I could see how you played your game and you did not seem to go after other robots to tip them. You seemed to play an offensive game, with some occaisional basket blocking. In the spirit of FIRST IMHO.
I will say it again though, if you had crossed over into the dark side, and made it a plan to tip over teams that were on the puck with their baskets raised, I would say that you would not be acting in the true spirit of FIRST. Face it, no robot with a basket can withstand a robot with an arm pulling it down. Most teams designed thier robot to have a basket which would elevate to eight feet, with a standard wheel base. It would very difficult to design a robot which could do all that this year's contest demanded, and add to that the ability to withstand tipping from an attacking team, AND withstand a fall with your basket raised.
My interpretation after two years in FIRST, is that FIRST wants sportsmanlike interaction, without the destructive interaction that tipping brings. I think FIRST needs to better clarify tipping so we can all know what is allowed, and what is not. As I recall from the BENGI-BOT, if two robots became entangled when battling for the puck, and one or both fell as a result, that was OK. It was not OK for one robot to reach out and pull another over by its' lifted basket, even to gain access to the puck. To tell you the truth, I didn't even think about any of this until I got home and some teammates and coworkers mentioned it to me after watching some of the video tape. Then it started to sink in. People who are looking in from the 'outside', thought that FIRST was not like robot wars, with tipping and the damage that comes with it.
I am not against robots with arms. I am against intentionally pulling over robots who have their baskets raised, anywhere on the field.

Sincerely,

Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/3/99 5:50 AM MST


In Reply to: I must admit posted by Tom Wible on 5/2/99 7:56 AM MST:



: I have got to admit it, your team is one that we look up to. You have a great team, with a good robot this year. When I saw your robot in Hartford this year I thought that you simply adapted last year's design to this year's game. You had a killer machine last year, and applying that basic desgn to this year's game I thought was a unique approach. I could see how you played your game and you did not seem to go after other robots to tip them. You seemed to play an offensive game, with some occaisional basket blocking. In the spirit of FIRST IMHO.

Thanks for your kind words. This was actually the third straight year that arm design has appeared on our robot.


: I will say it again though, if you had crossed over into the dark side, and made it a plan to tip over teams that were on the puck with their baskets raised, I would say that you would not be acting in the true spirit of FIRST.

I agree 100%, but this is not what I was upset about. Your initial post implied (to me) that robot DESIGNS, like TKO and, by extension, ours. Were not in the spirit of FIRST. This no longer appears to be what you are saying.


: Face it, no robot with a basket can withstand a robot with an arm pulling it down. Most teams designed thier robot to have a basket which would elevate to eight feet, with a standard wheel base. It would very difficult to design a robot which could do all that this year's contest demanded, and add to that the ability to withstand tipping from an attacking team, AND withstand a fall with your basket raised.

I believe that FIRST wanted teams to account for this with both design strategy and game play strategy. We were all unstable when fully extended. A good design strategy was to build a machine that was as stable as possible and had a quick, retractable lift. A quick, retractable lift alowed teams to wait until the final seconds to deploy their lift, and also return their robot to a more stable postion if it needed to fend off an attack.


: My interpretation after two years in FIRST, is that FIRST wants sportsmanlike interaction, without the destructive interaction that tipping brings. I think FIRST needs to better clarify tipping so we can all know what is allowed, and what is not. As I recall from the BENGI-BOT, if two robots became entangled when battling for the puck, and one or both fell as a result, that was OK. It was not OK for one robot to reach out and pull another over by its' lifted basket, even to gain access to the puck. To tell you the truth, I didn't even think about any of this until I got home and some teammates and coworkers mentioned it to me after watching some of the video tape. Then it started to sink in. People who are looking in from the 'outside', thought that FIRST was not like robot wars, with tipping and the damage that comes with it.
: I am not against robots with arms. I am against intentionally pulling over robots who have their baskets raised, anywhere on the field.

This was only my first year doing this, and I did not see the infamous 'BENGI-BOT' demo. My interpretation of the rules (and the spirit of FIRST) goes something like this:
1) Intentional attepmts to break or tip a robot are illegal - even
if they fail
2) Strategies of holding down or pushing down baskets or
pushing/pulling robots off of the puck are legal (I will admit
that grabbing an extended lift up high and pulling is, at best,
on the borderline of legality) - even if they result in damage
to a robot or tipping of a robot

I think FIRST asked us to build a robust robot that could withstand a lot of contact. I do not think they meant for the puck to be a safe haven for a robot that loaded itself up with 10 floppies, climbed onto the puck and lifted its basket within the first 45 seconds of the match. I think that FIRST wants (and know that I want) exciting matches. In this year's game, most of the excitement came while teams were fighting for the puck. I think that to disallow rough contact once a robot has raised its floppies would have made the game much less exciting to watch. As far as the inconsistency in the officiating between regionals. I would say that you have to expect that. Not only do the officials change between regionals, but no one, not even FIRST really knows what the game will look like before the first regional is played. I think that there were a less DQ's as we got further into the regional season because FIRST saw how the game was being played. You may think that it's unfair to change the interpretation of the rules as the season progresses. Personally, I do not have a problem with it as long as it is consistant within an event. Part of our job at acompetition is to see what is and is not being allowed, and to adjust our strategy accordingly.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on this issue. I am willing to 'agree to disagree' on interpretations of the rules, as long as we can both agree that the DESIGNS of the Bobcat, TKO, G-Force and others are well within the spirit of FIRST. I have enjoyed sparring with you over this issue, and hope that you'll be at the Rumble in July. If Andy doesn't beat me to it, I'll buy you a coke :-).

Best Regards,

P.J. Baker

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/5/99 1:18 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I must admit posted by P.J. Baker on 5/3/99 5:50 AM MST:




: That pretty much sums up my feelings on this issue. I am willing to 'agree to disagree' on interpretations of the rules, as long as we can both agree that the DESIGNS of the Bobcat, TKO, G-Force and others are well within the spirit of FIRST. I have enjoyed sparring with you over this issue, and hope that you'll be at the Rumble in July. If Andy doesn't beat me to it, I'll buy you a coke :-).

: Best Regards,

: P.J. Baker

Great post, long-lost cousin P.J.!

Same here, Tom. I'm glad that I brought up this issue. It is not suprising
that we are all so emotional about these issues, for obvious reasons.

It appears that I will be buying a few rounds of Cokes.

Thanks alot, Gargus!!!

Respect to you all,
Andy Baker

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 4/30/99 6:06 PM MST


In Reply to: I disagree - Robots with arms unite! posted by P.J. Baker on 4/30/99 8:30 AM MST:



I get it now, thanks for clearing it up for me. You used your 'multifunction arm' to pull a robot off the puck. Tipping it 'in the process', but tipping was NOT IN THE STRATEGY.
Thanks, for helping me understand.

Tom (sarcasitc) Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 4/30/99 9:52 PM MST


In Reply to: I get it now... posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 6:06 PM MST:



For your information our strategy was to get them off the puck had they remained on the puck we would have lost, perhaps tipping them over helped but it wasn't needed. what was needed was space on the puck with was taken up by the other team

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/1/99 6:51 AM MST


In Reply to: I get it now... posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 6:06 PM MST:



Not that I feel it would have been wrong, but I just got my picks back and it turns out that we did not tip that robot when we pulled it off of the puck.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/1/99 1:00 AM MST


In Reply to: I disagree - Robots with arms unite! posted by P.J. Baker on 4/30/99 8:30 AM MST:



Now that all has been spoken on the elegance of the general arm design, why don't we roll up our sleeves for a little mano-a-mano, eh?

We've got two van door motors, 2 aluminum box beams, and over a hundred rivets on that puppy. I dare ANYONE to mess with TOD. C'mon ;-)


-Daniel and G-Force

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 5/3/99 4:35 PM MST


In Reply to: unite?? how 'bout wrestle... posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 1:00 AM MST:



are you going to rumble? if so how bout a grudge match, arm vs arm

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/3/99 6:59 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: unite?? how 'bout wrestle... posted by Jacob Etter on 5/3/99 4:35 PM MST:



I wish. Maybe next year...unless there are still spots but I doubt it. I still haven't gotten a response from Mr. B about that.

Too bad, cuz I've always wanted to do that =)


Maybe next year?
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 5/4/99 12:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: unite?? how 'bout wrestle... posted by Daniel on 5/3/99 6:59 PM MST:



I love to see this kind of stuff when i come to this web page. When it comes down to it this whole program is about who has a better robot. It's about who can score more or who can push the puck better or who can play the best defense. This is why I do this program it is for the competition and knowing that your robot is one of the best in the nation. I wish both your teams were going to Rumble cause I saw both of them in action and I would love to see this battle take place.

Kuli Team 88 TJ²

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 5/7/99 11:38 PM MST


In Reply to: This is what FIRST is about posted by Mike Kulibaba on 5/4/99 12:27 PM MST:



my team, 177, ifc & south windsor is going to rumble

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Bazydlo, Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro Inc..

Posted on 5/15/99 8:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: This is what FIRST is about posted by Jacob Etter on 5/7/99 11:38 PM MST:



: my team, 126, Nypro & Clinton High School is going to rumble

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/4/99 6:23 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: unite?? how 'bout wrestle... posted by Jacob Etter on 5/3/99 4:35 PM MST:



After an email to Mike B, my team is now #5 on the waiting list.

We may get a chance to brawl after all =)


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Tim Murray, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO inc..

Posted on 5/3/99 4:09 PM MST


In Reply to: I disagree - Robots with arms unite! posted by P.J. Baker on 4/30/99 8:30 AM MST:



Team 177,

You tried something like that on us also in the NE regional in one of
the matches. You were done and the only way you could win was to try
and push our basket up and remove our floppies. The 120$ material on
our basket won that battle though and we went on to win after you tipped
over. also, when you tipped over, in under 5 seconds you were back up.
The last minute and a half of that match you guys had me practically
hyperventilating. You had a very unique robot this year.

Can't wait for next year

Tim

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/3/99 6:29 PM MST


In Reply to: You did that to us too! posted by Tim Murray on 5/3/99 4:09 PM MST:



Yes, we did try to empty your basket with our arm in the QF match. I hope you noticed that we tried to empty it from underneath and did not try to destroy your lift (which might have been more effective, but definitely not in the spirit of FIRST). Yuo guys did a great job this year. We'll see you at the rumble.

p.s. - thanks for noticing how quickly we were able to get up after we tipped. It is a great feature of our arm, but no one gets to see it that often.

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 4/30/99 7:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Not mean but in violation posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST:



: If you read the rules they say that strategies aimed at intentional tipping of robots are NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF FIRST.
: You guys clearly used tipping as a strategy and clearly designed your robot to do that. I would contend that the refs made a big mistake allowing this type of strategy to be used.
: I hope FIRST is listening.

: Tom Wible

As team leader for the TechnoKats (team #45) I cannot stand by silently while others malign my team. Let me start by apologizing to any team that thinks we played the game unfairly. FIRST set down specific rules for the game and we followed them. We were never disqualified or even given a warning for malicious behavior. We always tried to be the first to shake hands, offer good luck, and then say 'good match' when it was over, win or lose. If a robot was damaged in a round we were in, we were the first to offer help, tools, or supplies. I will stand behind my team's robot design, our strategy, and our integrity until the day I die.

I want to make two things absolutely clear:

One, we did NOT use tipping as a strategy. We NEVER went into a match saying that the way to win was to tip over our opponent. Our strategy was to get on the puck and keep our opponents off. We tried to put our arm on any opponent's robot that tried to climb the puck in the best spot we could find to fend them off. We never went after another team with the intent to tip them over.

And two, we did NOT design any component on our robot for tipping other robots over. If you'll look at our arm with an open mind you'll see that the design is optimized for pushing other robots away, not tipping them over. We didn't put a gripper or hook at the end to grab other robots with, nor did we put on a wedge or a spoon to slide under a robot. At the end of the arm is a blunt surface with a rubber pad designed to make solid contact without causing damage.

Furthermore, the motors, gears and controls were designed to deliver a slow, powerful push, not a fast punch. We even applied different scaling to the PWM outputs for the shoulder and elbow joints so the arm would push out horizontally, not upward, which would be the desired motion if we'd wanted to tip robots over.

In only three of our more than 40 matches in two regionals and the Nationals did contact with our robot result in another team's robot tipping over. In two of these, the opponent's robot was on the puck and we were just trying to push them off. I saw robots that didn't even have arms tip other robots over in an attempt to push them off the puck.

If you watched the 'Benji Robot' demonstrations you'd know that this is legal, that intense interaction is expected around the puck and that this may sometimes lead to one or both of the robots being tipped over. It would be different if a team were to drive their robot up behind you while you were gathering floppies from your human player, slide a wedge under your base and tip you out of bounds. This is obviously not in the spirit of FIRST and should always result in disqualification. This is also something I would never allow on my team.

There is a difference between a component capable of tipping another robot over, and one that is specifically designed and used for that purpose. Any arm would be capable of tipping another robot over, especially one that is lifting floppies 8 feet in the air. The fact that so few such tippings took place is a testament to the gracious professionalism of all those involved in FIRST. If FIRST were to disallow any component capable of tipping other robots, or disqualify any team whose interaction with another robot resulted in that other robot tipping over, we'd end up with very constrained design parameters, a very boring game, and, worst of all, very uninspired students.

If anyone wishes to discuss this with me in more detail, don't hesitate to email or call.

Jeff Burch - TechnoKats Team Leader
Delphi / Kokomo High School, Team #45
Jhburch@mail.delcoelect.com
765-451-9870

[archiver]

Posted by Eric gargus, Student on team #217, Team Macomb, from Armada High School and Ford and Fraser.

Posted on 4/30/99 8:02 PM MST


In Reply to: In our defense posted by Jeff Burch on 4/30/99 7:32 PM MST:



I know exactly how Tom and some others feel about the TechnoKats.

As I have admitted, I too was once not a fan of the Kats for the same reasons as others have presented.

But if you just talk to the Kats you find out that they were often more concerned about the condition of the Bots in the opposing alliance then they are there own. They aren't out to tip anyones bot, but if it happens while defending the puck it happens. There strategy is as much in the spirit of FIRST as any other Teams.

I for one liked the TechnoKats after I got to know them. They are a fun team to hang around and are really great folks. And I'll continue to defend them until the issue is settled.

To Jeff, Andy and the rest of the TechnoKats, you've made a beleiver out of at least one person, others will follow in time. Keep up the good work guys!

Eric Gargus

P.S. Remember Andy Baker you owe me a coke :-)

: : If you read the rules they say that strategies aimed at intentional tipping of robots are NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF FIRST.
: : You guys clearly used tipping as a strategy and clearly designed your robot to do that. I would contend that the refs made a big mistake allowing this type of strategy to be used.
: : I hope FIRST is listening.

: : Tom Wible

: As team leader for the TechnoKats (team #45) I cannot stand by silently while others malign my team. Let me start by apologizing to any team that thinks we played the game unfairly. FIRST set down specific rules for the game and we followed them. We were never disqualified or even given a warning for malicious behavior. We always tried to be the first to shake hands, offer good luck, and then say 'good match' when it was over, win or lose. If a robot was damaged in a round we were in, we were the first to offer help, tools, or supplies. I will stand behind my team's robot design, our strategy, and our integrity until the day I die.

: I want to make two things absolutely clear:

: One, we did NOT use tipping as a strategy. We NEVER went into a match saying that the way to win was to tip over our opponent. Our strategy was to get on the puck and keep our opponents off. We tried to put our arm on any opponent's robot that tried to climb the puck in the best spot we could find to fend them off. We never went after another team with the intent to tip them over.

: And two, we did NOT design any component on our robot for tipping other robots over. If you'll look at our arm with an open mind you'll see that the design is optimized for pushing other robots away, not tipping them over. We didn't put a gripper or hook at the end to grab other robots with, nor did we put on a wedge or a spoon to slide under a robot. At the end of the arm is a blunt surface with a rubber pad designed to make solid contact without causing damage.

: Furthermore, the motors, gears and controls were designed to deliver a slow, powerful push, not a fast punch. We even applied different scaling to the PWM outputs for the shoulder and elbow joints so the arm would push out horizontally, not upward, which would be the desired motion if we'd wanted to tip robots over.

: In only three of our more than 40 matches in two regionals and the Nationals did contact with our robot result in another team's robot tipping over. In two of these, the opponent's robot was on the puck and we were just trying to push them off. I saw robots that didn't even have arms tip other robots over in an attempt to push them off the puck.

: If you watched the 'Benji Robot' demonstrations you'd know that this is legal, that intense interaction is expected around the puck and that this may sometimes lead to one or both of the robots being tipped over. It would be different if a team were to drive their robot up behind you while you were gathering floppies from your human player, slide a wedge under your base and tip you out of bounds. This is obviously not in the spirit of FIRST and should always result in disqualification. This is also something I would never allow on my team.

: There is a difference between a component capable of tipping another robot over, and one that is specifically designed and used for that purpose. Any arm would be capable of tipping another robot over, especially one that is lifting floppies 8 feet in the air. The fact that so few such tippings took place is a testament to the gracious professionalism of all those involved in FIRST. If FIRST were to disallow any component capable of tipping other robots, or disqualify any team whose interaction with another robot resulted in that other robot tipping over, we'd end up with very constrained design parameters, a very boring game, and, worst of all, very uninspired students.

: If anyone wishes to discuss this with me in more detail, don't hesitate to email or call.

: Jeff Burch - TechnoKats Team Leader
: Delphi / Kokomo High School, Team #45
: Jhburch@mail.delcoelect.com
: 765-451-9870

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/1/99 7:05 AM MST


In Reply to: In our defense posted by Jeff Burch on 4/30/99 7:32 PM MST:



Jeff,

Well said!

Also, great job this year. Hope to meet you at the rumble.

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 4/30/99 8:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Not mean but in violation posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST:



in one round of the competition, we were paired against a arm-based machine designed for defense. While they were guarding the puck, which we were also already on top of, their arm became lodged in our steel-rod basket. Both teams tried pulling to get loose, and in the end our basket was damaged, and we tipped backwards off the puck, landing on our side. Comments on this scenario?

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/1/99 1:29 AM MST


In Reply to: what about this? posted by Nate Smith on 4/30/99 8:32 PM MST:



Nate,

As per rule V6, 'robot shoving will be allowed and is expected to be quite common.' FIRST continually advises in the violation section that teams build their robot to take a beating. It is obvious FIRST expected some measure of contact. In V7, FIRST states that 'if the damaged alliance's robot is considered too flimsy, no disqualification will occur.' In fact, they go on to say 'the safest strategy is to build a tough machine and try to win with strategies and moves that may be aggressive but are not mean spirited.' Look over what you wrote in your message. It is obvious the two robots were tangled and in the process something bent. That is the fault of both. Their arm was undamaged while your basket was bent. Perhaps you should have built your basket as tough as they built their arm. It does not appear that anybody was TRYING to hurt anybody else. Am I wrong?

I gotta say, when our robot was fork-lifted two feet in the air, dropped, and then lifted, and dropped again our first year, I was pissed. But pretty quickly I realized that that was a pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# entertaining match. That's what this is about! Inspiration sprouts from entertainment. Let it slide! It's all part of the game and FIRST makes that pretty clear. Read your manual with an open mind and you'll see what I'm talking about.


No hard feelings?
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 5/1/99 7:00 AM MST


In Reply to: Ponder the Principle posted by Daniel on 5/1/99 1:29 AM MST:



Daniel,

Thanks for quoting the rule book on that one. I didn't have it here and wanted to point out that FIRST makes it very clear that if you build a flimsy robot you must face the consequences.

P.J.

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 5/1/99 10:50 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ponder the Principle posted by P.J. Baker on 5/1/99 7:00 AM MST:




You want to play.. build a robot that can handle it is what i think. Over the years we've had robots be attacked, pushed, shoved, tipped several matches in a row, and all our bots survived... FIRST is a contact sport, although graciously professional in the way it will be done, some robot's going to go down..

so.. i can definitely agree with Mr. Wible and i too thought TKOs robot looked to be built for fighting only.. but i can't say that i wouldn't have loved to have a chance to play a match against them... the way i look at it.. if two robots are going to collide, normally it's the one going after the other that will sustain the most damage.. and so if that robot can handle it.. so shouldn't the other one be able too..

as for the robot arms that tipped..i saw it happen several times, esp in a few matches we watched in chicago.. their arm is built for scoring, not tipping, and if it happens to work for both, then congrats to them for building an arm that can do all that... i was esp impressed by team #1s capabilties in that regard.. watching them in chicago, we were sure they would end up on top.. and they earned it well in florida.. in fact, we lost to them in the first elimination matches... they tipped over our alliance partner with their arm... and i think they have a great robot..

in a nutshell.. i'm not being mean or anything, but you've got to build your robots tough cause FIRST is a be nice more than a play nice game... and if in the shuffle something gets broken or bent, that's why you should have spare parts.. that's what pit crews are for.. i like FIRST at the level of competition it's at and think that's a lot about what makes it fun.. there are more scratches, dent, hunks of plywood and other material missing from our machine this year than any other year i know of... and many robots in turn had the chance to put them there, but it wouldn't be the same without them..

..i know my grandma would be proud if she saw the way we played and the way the competition ran this year, how about yours?

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/1/99 10:51 PM MST


In Reply to: Not mean but in violation posted by Tom Wible on 4/30/99 7:36 AM MST:



: If you read the rules they say that strategies aimed at intentional tipping of robots are NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF FIRST.
: You guys clearly used tipping as a strategy and clearly designed your robot to do that. I would contend that the refs made a big mistake allowing this type of strategy to be used.
: I hope FIRST is listening.

: Tom Wible

Tom,

Good points. I appreciate your post. But, you don't
really know what our strategy was and why we designed
our robot's arm the way we did. It may be 'clear' to
you, but it wasn't that way in the beginning of this
year's competition.

Let me tell you some history about how our robot and
strategy developed.

Our arm was originally designed to hold opposing robots
at arms length (like a straight arm), and to grab ahold
of a basket and raise it, much like 192's robot (if any
of you noticed them :) ). Our problem was the basket.
We worked so long on our arm and drive base, that we had
a really bad basket.

During the Chicago regional, out of frustration, we ended
up taking our basket off and just playing with our arm.
During a match against team 74, we pushed (tipped) them
off of the puck with our arm. Many people at that time
either loved the move or hated it, thinking it was not
gracious professionalism. I was worried. I wasn't sure
if it was legal or not.

Well, we made it through the match by not being DQed.
Then we were really suprised when FIRST gave us the Defensive
Play of the Day for that very move. Since FIRST rewarded
us, we threw away our basket design and concentrated on
playing defense with the arm. I guess that we used that
Defensive award as a license to play the way that you
didn't like.

Maybe this clears some things up, maybe not. If not...
then hopefully we can agree to disagree about this.


Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Ross, Student on team #330, Beach Bot II, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL, NASA ARC.

Posted on 4/30/99 12:05 PM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



I think that the matches I saw that involved the TechnoKats were some of the most exciting matches I saw. I'd say that even when you guys got close to breaking the rules. I still enjoyed the matches.

I hope that FIRST doesn't get more strict and that more teams will build their robots to sustain this kind of beating.

I know I am not speaking for everyone on our team (Especially those team members who still refer to G-Force as the 'bad' team) But I think that defensive robots make for very exciting matches.

Joe Ross
Team 330

: I know I don't have to do this, but I feel that we as a team need to explain ourselves a little bit.

: A little birdy told me that more than a few people didn't quite like our robot design, and thought that our TKO boxing theme was not within the spirit of FIRST. I heard that various people thought that we designed our robot to only beat up everyone else's. Well, I'm here to tell you, that is not true.

: Here was our thinking: we saw the puck at kickoff, and we instantly thought that FIRST wanted more contact between the robots. So, we gave them what they wanted... action. I was suprised that more teams didn't go down this design road.

: We never wanted to hurt anyone's machine, we just wanted to keep our opponents off the puck and from raising their floppies.

: After we did not do very well in Chicago, we watched the elimination rounds. We saw VERY good basket lifters getting on the puck and playing defense. I thought that was a waste of many good basket lift designs.

: We saw our niche. We got rid of our basket design and went for puck control. We wanted to be the team that everyone wanted as their partner in the finals.

: Hopefully, we didn't tick anyone off too bad. If so, let me know, and I'll buy you a Coke also.

: Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 5/1/99 11:36 PM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



I understand the points for and against the mechanisms used by the Technocats and by Gunn. My team was in a round against the Technocats and felt the wrath of the arm. I however do not feel that the way they used the arm was in any way bad or illigal. As a matter of fact I thought the strategy used by the Technocats was a very good one. A stiff arm, a basket block, or using the arm to gain position on the puck is totally legal. The design of the Technocats machine is a good one and was used within the rules. However there are some instances that many teams are guilty of that involve tipping and distruction, wether it be on purpose or not. This game was made for contact, or else it would be fairly boring. Some teams just have different ways of doing it. There are limits, and I have never been a fan of tipping. Just watching the video of TJ toppling over at rumble two years ago and breaking into tons of pieces makes me cringe. Back then the game was different however, this year, the robots are the goals and positioning is the most important aspect in the game. This means contact is going to happen, and it will happen in many different ways. So I would say to the Technocats that their shouldn't be anything to clear up. But that is just my opinion :)
Cya all later,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by Tim Murray, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO inc..

Posted on 5/3/99 4:20 PM MST


In Reply to: We're really not that mean. posted by Andy Baker on 4/28/99 7:37 PM MST:



I know you've done a lot of explaining and all but i just thought
for the sake of people who are still skeptical, i have to ask this
question myself. correct me if i'm wrong, but i went to chicago to
check things out and i remember the technokats robot having illegal
materials on their treads. These materials were not completely illegal
however their use was. They used half pieces of EMT conduit which would
tear up the playing field floor. FIRST let the team compete anyways.
This seems like an indication to me that this robot was made to be an
aggressive robot that might've been designed to do 'mean' things. I'm
not pointing out the rules violation but using EMT conduit on tank
treads??? that sounds like they might've been trying to do a little more
than just be aggressive. I'm just questioning team 45's motive behind
that and if there's an explanation for that just like there was for the
other questionable components of their machine.

Have fun with this one Tom Wible :)

Tim Murray

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 5/3/99 7:12 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We're not really mean posted by Tim Murray on 5/3/99 4:20 PM MST:



Did you ever see TKO get pushed around? Nope. Did you ever see them move a robot off the puck? Yup.

This is their motivation. Period.

Rule V6 states that 'robot shoving will be allowed and is expected to be quite common.'

As friction is key in 'robot shoving', TKO is strictly in accordance with the rules on this one.


All I gotta say is...nice treads!
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/4/99 7:34 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: We're not really mean posted by Tim Murray on 5/3/99 4:20 PM MST:



Tim,

Allow me to reply to your note point by point.

: i remember the technokats robot having illegal
: materials on their treads. These materials were not completely illegal
: however their use was.

Hang on a sec... first you claim that our treads were illegal, and then
they're not. Make up your mind. If they are, where is the rule?

: They used half pieces of EMT conduit which would
: tear up the playing field floor.

We didn't just use these treads in Chicago, we also used them in Yipsi
and in Orlando. From what I remember, we didn't damage any of the carpet.
Sure, simply looking at our treads would make you think that they would
rip the carpet, but they didn't. We were inspected and passed easily.
Also, the refs were looking for any damage produced on the carpet during
any match we were in. No damage was done.

: FIRST let the team compete anyways.
: This seems like an indication to me that this robot was made to be an
: aggressive robot that might've been designed to do 'mean' things. I'm
: not pointing out the rules violation but using EMT conduit on tank
: treads??? that sounds like they might've been trying to do a little more
: than just be aggressive. I'm just questioning team 45's motive behind
: that and if there's an explanation for that just like there was for the
: other questionable components of their machine.

Hello? Do you remember that there was this octagon platform in the middle
of the field that teams were trying to pull to one side of the field? We
saw that part of the game and said that we wanted to best traction possible,
in order to pull the puck wherever we wanted to take it. You you call that
mean? I suppose it is if we are pulling it right through your machine, but
I call that part of the game. The EMT conduit gave us the best traction we
could get (too much, actually, but's that another story!). That is simply
why we used the EMT. I guess you can say that we had some 'mean traction'.

We did not use the treads to tear up anyone's machine on purpose. Once,
in Yipsi, we go into team 264's electronics with our treads. Once it
happened, our driver was ordered to stop. After some re-wiring, team
264's machine was able to make it to the next match. Before nationals,
264 put a better guard over their electronics and we put a guard on that
end of our treads to keep this from happening again.

I take offense with your claim that we tried to do 'mean' things. Cite the
match and stake your claim. Don't just offer your opinion without backing
it up with facts. As you can see from my other posts, I'm pretty open-
minded and cool about things. For obvious reasons, your post ticked me
off. If that was your intent, then it worked.

: Tim Murray

Tim, hopefully, we will be at the Rumble. I will be happy to talk with
you then about our designs and our intent.

Andy Baker

[archiver]

Posted by Tim Murray, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO inc..

Posted on 5/4/99 12:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We're not really mean posted by Andy Baker on 5/4/99 7:34 AM MST:



Andy,

I apologize for any offense i might have caused you. AT NO TIME WAS IT EVER MEANT TO OFFEND YOU OR GIVE YOUR TEAM A BAD NAME!!!!! In case you misunderstood me, I just brought the point up because i noticed that you gave an explanation to those who thought that you might've been a 'mean' team. As a member of Clinton NYPRO/CHS FIRST team, I am aware that your team as well as mine is one of the very few original partnerships remaining and that our teams have maintained the absolute highest reputation of all teams. I believe that teams like 45 and 126 are to be looked up to. If any question of a rules violation ever were to come up as an issue with our team, we would automatically rule that option out. We would never even bend the rules or play unfair. It is my understanding that your team is the same way. I was very unsure of any facts in dealing with your traction and questioned you about them in the post. I wasn't trying to say that you purposely placed on illegal treads. I was merely asking a question about whether or not these were considered illegal or if you had to replace them etc. I know that at no time, your team would ever try to do a mean or unjust thing. I am in defense of your team and robot as well as you however i brought up the question of your treads because it came to mind and it just happened to be your machine. The entire post was an entire question about why you used the treads and whether or not you had to take them off in later regionals.

My team will be at rumble, but i am unsure of whether or not i will be there. i would certainly like to go and talk to you about FIRST etc. but not argue about things that were misunderstood.

I'm sorry for your misunderstanding,

Tim

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/4/99 2:08 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We're not really mean posted by Tim Murray on 5/4/99 12:58 PM MST:



Tim,

I guess I got a bit wound up about your post... maybe a bit too much.

From what you posted, you have some very good insight (about what you
saw in Chicago) and I admire you for speaking your mind. You are the
first person who openly questioned our tread design, and what our
intentions were in making them that way.

I'm sure that if you and I were face to face, and you said 'hey, Andy,
what's the deal with those treads!!! They look pretty mean to me!', then
we would have a friendly conversation about what we had to go through
to get those darn treads to work.

The trouble with posting opinions on websites and emails is that the
person you are talking to can easily misunderstand the your intentions
and only pick up on a few key words that can easily 'tick off' the reader
(in my case, it was the word MEAN). If you knew me, the last thing I
want to be called is mean... but then I look at my original post on this
thread and I said 'We're really not that MEAN'. So, since you used that
same word, so therefore you were sorta given license to use it.

I suppose that I should've expected courageous guys like you and Tom to
reply to my original message... I asked for it. I also realize that many
teams shed alot of blood, sweat and tears, working on their robot. After
all of that work, along comes a robot who 'appears' to be designed to tear
up everyone else's bot, I guess we were asking to get some grief.

Once again, no problem, Tim. No offense taken. I am disappointed that
you won't be at Rumble. I would've enjoyed talking with you.

Regards,
Andy Baker

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 5/4/99 7:55 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: We're not really mean posted by Tim Murray on 5/3/99 4:20 PM MST:



I'd like to clear this traction issue up here. The RULES state that if your robot does not pass the traction test, then you are illegal.
The test consists of putting the robot against a wall, with carpeting under the robot. If at full throttle, the carpet is damaged, then you fail.
If the judges allowed treads that would not pass this test, then they have done an injustice to the rest of the teams that work hard to play by the rules.
The problem here is that this is always a judgement call. Even the wheelchair wheels damage the rug, given enough power. So once again, we have an issue which is grey and left up to the judges opinion, and the good judgement of the teams.
Any other thoughts?

Tom Wible

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/4/99 9:34 AM MST


In Reply to: Let's cut to the chase here posted by Tom Wible on 5/4/99 7:55 AM MST:



Trying to maximize traction and still make it through Tech Inspection has been one of the most stomach churning aspect of the FIRST competition. 'Carpet damage' involves some subjective judgement, and we have been subjected to some ad hoc testing proceedures intended to amplify the impact of our drive system on the carpet. I don't want to get into that, but I feel that FIRST really needs to come to grips with this issue. I admire the 45 bot trac system as a piece of engineering, but I'll just say, Andy, you guys showed more nerve with that than I could afford, based on our past experience. I'll also say the front end of your tracs made a pretty good bot muncher.

Enough complaining tho. I'd like to suggest that FIRST do away with carpet and replace it with something like rubber matting, or some surface that can be chewed up and replaced at modest cost. I'd also like to see the game go towards a bigger field, so that play strategies of speed and mobility could compete with traction and thrust on a more equal 'footing.' Especially now with 4 bots on the field, there's just not much room. This contributes to more robot 'interaction', which produces excitement, but I can imagine other, faster game structures with similar interaction possibilities.

Dodd