Re: Why go over the bump
 

I agree, few will be crossing the field very often, but having the capability to do both the bump and bridge can be very important in the occasional situation

Pros: Can cross the field quickly, can play better defense, can get around defense more easily, faster crossing time, more appealing when choosing alliances

Cons: Heavier robot (if you use separate mechanisms for the bridge and bump), takes more time to develop and build, more expensive

Overall, it is good to be able to cross the bump, but it would probably be better to focus on other aspects of the robot such as shooting (unless you plan on doing hardcore defense, where it can be good to be able to quickly go over the bump)

Re: Why go over the bump
 

It's all about strategy. If you have a killer strategy that prohibits crossing the barrier then great, otherwise I'd suggest a more flexible solution.

Truthfully, it's all about your startegy, and your capabilities as a team.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

Why go over the bump is like asking why be able to score from different places on the field. Some teams are only going to be able to score from one place or only go over the bridge. If you and your partners can only go over the bridge or only score from the same place then the game is going to be very slow and low scoring for you.

Being able to traverse both the bridge and the bump, as well as being able to reliably score from at least 3 places on the field is going to make you a better partner to play with, as you will not be interfering with your partners as much.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

We saw the bridge as the main priority since it allowed a considerable bonus at the end of the match, and also allowed traversal into the other half of the field. So why cross the bump? In the case of traffic issues (and even just normally) it will likely save time, and the relatively simple mechanism we are using for the bridge will work identically for the bump, requiring only a more specific wheel configuration. So for us, the extra design complexity was minimal, so the minimal cost was worth the potential gain (though it may prove only marginal).

Re: Why go over the bump
 

The game would not be very slow and low scoring if there were three robots on the same alliance that could only score from one place (e.g. the key). You just need a good passing game, and reliable pick-up from the ground. With this strategy, robots would not have to cross the bridge very much.

Also I have my doubts on more than a handful of robots being able to accurately score long-distance. I may be wrong, but it's the way I see it and a whole new discussion could be made out of it.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

Personally, I don't really see such a conflict here. I do think going over the bump should be accounted for because, as said before, why handicap your robot? If I had to choose between the two, undoubtedly I would absolutely choose the bridge. As with the mini bot last year, getting those end-game points are worth like 3+ baskets, more if you have multiple robots on the bridge. The end-game as last year, I believe will be very important and a wise choice. Do you get any point explicitly for crossing the bump. No. I know I know, It saves valuable time, but really, will it equate to a 10 (or more) point bonus? Yes, you could have other teams tip it for you, but I really don't think we should design our robots around other robots. But, I said if I had to choose.

Thats the thing, you don't!

This isnt some majorly complex task to solve. It just takes some ingenuity, which is what FIRST is all about!

It seems extremely possible to me to design a drive base that can cross the bump and also a bot that can tip the bridge. There doesn't need to be some extravagant mechanism, just a lever of sorts to tip the thing on the front. And my team has a drive base that just drives over the bump! No extra moving parts!

I think that the bridge is more important, but in the long run, a team like mine will be able to do both and we don't have any extensive resources or huge grants(We are in the two thousands).

Just my two cents!

Re: Why go over the bump
 

Bridge vs. barrier isn't an either/or choice. If it was, then bridge. But it isn't so be capable of both. With a limited ball supply, one alliance can control them all. Perhaps the best way to get and maintain control of the ball supply is to feed primarily from your own rebounder lane, collect your opponents missed shots, and carry balls to the key rather than throwing them across the field. You might find yourself crossing midfield very often. Keep your options open.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

No, it's not possible for one alliance to control all of the balls, even if one alliance is really terrible. An alliance that plays the hoarding game can hold on to a large majority of the balls, but only by not scoring while allowing opponents to score and thus digging themselves a hole. An alliance whose opponents have pathetic accuracy can hold on to a large majority of the balls, but do you really want to plan your strategy around your opponents being inaccurate?

Re: Why go over the bump
 

When our team first thought it through, we thought that we needed to get over the bump, but we analyzed the game more. We figured that one team will defend/score, team2 will score, team3 will shoot balls to the other side from the team lane. So if this is the case you will need to cross the bridge/barrier at maximum 2-3 times a game, so even if it takes a few more seconds to get over the bridge, it's better than using a lot of time/effort/weight to make something to cross the barrier.

tl;dr we thought that going over the bridge is better

Re: Why go over the bump
 

This actually wasn't a problem for us, because our bridge mechanism allows us to get over the bridge without stopping, and may actually be faster than going over the barrier.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

Of course it is. An almost arbitrary number of balls can be placed in the corner of your alley, which a diagonally-parked robot can protect just by sitting there.

Don't be so quick to dismiss strategy... Besides awesome versatile robots, it's what wins games every single year.

We were lucky enough to off-season prototype a drive train that is just about perfect for this particular game; it's heavy and rather expensive (though not really, due to the awesome donation from Gates), but as far as time/effort it was a clever use of band saws and day and a half of tweaking/re-tweaking to traverse the barrier... and as for weight, we're at 107 lbs including everything but a few wires.

It's likely too late for many teams, but I think that teams that can't cross the barrier will be bitten by it at some point this year. In 2010 we were first seed tournament champions at FLR without ever once even trying to cross the barrier (we could, sometimes, inconsistently...) There were several games at Championship where we could have won had we the ability, but we didn't, so we didn't.

tl;dr version: If studying the elite teams has taught me anything in the past seven years, it's that the drive train is absolutely the most important aspect of your robot, hands-down, no contest.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

By my interpretation of the rules you can't have more than 3 balls there since trapping them in that manner is considered controlling them.

To answer the question of the post. Why go over the bump? It's faster and I believe safer too since there is less chance of tipping over. We plan to only go on the bridge to balance.

http://tahomarobotics.org/2012/02/02...bump-part-two/

Re: Why go over the bump
 

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

• Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
• One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
• Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks :rolleyes: If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
• You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

• Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
• Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.


I hope this helps!
-Leeand

Re: Why go over the bump
 

If done right you should be able to make your robot drive right over the bar without much robot work. (Track drive works great) then have plenty of weight to add other things like:

Ball shooter

Bridge handler: I say this because you might want to be able to raise, lower or help balance the bridge

Something to play a little defense



I think there will be a lot of robots that will be able to do all this and more. So do not limit yourself too do just one or the other.

Re: Why go over the bump
 

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.