|
The missing feature: A common thread
Throughout the years of FRC that I've been involved, I have noticed that there is one defining feature that sets apart the robots of powerhouse teams and regular ones. Every year, there is some feature that the powerhouses realize that the rest of the teams miss. This year, it was over the bumper collector. Last year, it was roller claws. Breakaway was active ball control mechanisms. Towards the goal of furthering my team towards the powerhouse route, I've racked my brains trying to come up with an answer and a solution, and have come up with none. So I will phrase the question this way:
How do these teams come up with these ideas? Why do other teams not come up with them? The other question is, are these teams powerhouses because they come up with this kind of idea? Or do they come up with this kind of idea because they are powerhouses? |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
For our team, we actually ruled out the extended drop down intake/bridge arm because we thought it would be best to simplify our rookie bot a bit, but it was in our initial design.
We later ended up adding these features anyway :rolleyes: Overall I think it just comes from experience and a good design process. Also, collaboration with others helps A LOT. Also a lot of the time there are normal teams who will come up with something like drop down intakes whathaveyou, but don't execute them as well as the elites. I think for this season, the real feature that put a couple teams at the top was a balancing aid + drop down intake. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
;) |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
How about the implementation of those ideas? Ideas are relatively easy compared to making them a fully-functional reality.
I think probably the best way to come up with ideas like that is prototyping and/or game simulation. Simulating the game tells you that X will be important; the prototypes tell you what highly effective methods you can come up with. Sometimes, it's just the execution, though. In 2005, the powerhouses tended to go for single-tetra robots, built for "surgery"--they could get in, cap a row in a particularly awkward place for an opponent, and get out to load up and strike again quickly and cleanly. Other robots built single-tetra robots, but they couldn't pull that kind of maneuver cleanly and reliably. (The multi-tetra robots had a much harder time; I actually saw one single-tetra robot clear a stack of 3-4 off the top of a multi-tetra robot just by hitting the tetras.) |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I'm glad you posted this, because I've been thinking exactly the same thing for the last couple weeks. I haven't been part of any top-tier teams, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but I think there's several things at work:
Obviously, these teams are "powerhouses" because they come up with these defining features year after year. But they develop these features because they are relentlessly pursing high performance designs. They aren't content with the first idea that comes to mind, or the idea that will be easiest to fabricate. Nor are they content with the first thing they build. After watching a regional, most teams could go back home and design a really good robot, but by then it's too late. The trick that powerhouse teams have mastered is doing this type of learning and iteration during the build season - before they get to the regional. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
A lot of it comes down to speed and iteration: most teams finish at least part of their robot a few days before ship, use it, and it breaks so they improve it. Then it's time to crate or bag the robot, so that's all the improvement you do.
Powerhouse teams got to that stage weeks before you did, and so have found problems or places to improve, improved them, and so end up with a much better robot overall. 2702 example: we had our robot completely done about a week before ship this year. In that week, we fixed a huge reliability problem with our ball-lift, discovered and fixed an encoder problem on the shooter, discovered the robot was too tall/tippy and shortened it, changed the drive code for further tip resistance, and redesigned the pickup software. The robot we bagged was at least 2x as good as it had been the week before. Now imagine 2-3 weeks of that kind of improvement, and you have a powerhouse robot. Also they've got really smart and experienced mentors and students, so their first iteration may be better than yours. Plus they often have many sponsors, so they can iterate faster than you. But both of those things a smaller team can, over time, acquire. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I'd like to delve a little more into the "fast iteration" thing. We also put a lot of time into prototyping, but never seem to do it as quickly or thoroughly as the powerhouses. What are the factors here? For example, do we need to find some kind of fast-fabrication sponsor? (I'm certainly not implying that's all there is!)
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
A. Drive around; possibly over obstacles; possibly with pushing and shoving B. Pick up and/or move around objects; possibly of odd shapes; possibly very heavy C. Place and/or throw those same objects In my discussions with people on powerhouse teams, they spend a lot of off-season time on "what if's" -- what if we have to shoot a ball? Lift a tube? A crate? A tetra? Another robot? Our robot? What if we're playing with those pieces, but aren't allowed to pick them up? What if we can't break our own frame perimeter? What if we can? Add in height limits, carrying limits, and anything else you can think of. Research every single FIRST game and come up with ideas on how you would create mechanisms using the resources you actually have that are fast, durable, and reliable. The tasks that robots are required to do have not changed much over 21 years (move self; move various stuff). Coming into kickoff with a stable of ideas that can be iterated is much better than coming into kickoff with a set of skills but no solid ideas... ...and that means that when FIRST throws you for a loop (orbit balls, slick wheels, not being able to pick balls up off of the ground, absolute height limits), you have more time and brainpower you can direct that the novel tasks, because the less-novel tasks are well in hand. (All that sounds good in theory. Somehow 1551 still manages to seriously screw up something on a yearly basis. Perhaps next year we won't!) |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
(1) I considered the drop down intake to be something that would only compliment an already great robot. I figured that if we could make that 'great' robot, then adding the drop down later wouldn't be an issue.
(2) The team felt that the mechanism was also unnecessary. In years past where the bumper zone has been limited, teams have made do with the openings that have been available to them. This is where I think we struck out. Since I supported this from the beginning, I'm partially to blame. (3) We simply do not, and would not, have the weight even if we wanted to. This comes with the territory of semi-questionable design practices, using reckless amounts of 8020, and simply not planning far enough ahead. - Sunny G. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
No one has said practice time?
As StevenB said, powerhouse teams build (or perhaps invest in) accurate fields. As Bongle said, powerhouse teams build fast. As pfreivald said, powerhouse teams design with years of experience (theirs or otherwise) behind them. But the real key is being able to practice. Sometimes that's just about finishing fast enough to have that week in the end of build season to drive around, or to go to a scrimmage. Sometimes that's about building a practice bot. But practice helps teams work out kinks and discover problems they never anticipated or new uses for existing mechanisms. That's why teams usually get better from one regional to the next. Powerhouse teams start out with the benefit of a solid shakedown of the robot and are thus a leap ahead of the competition. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
This is a great discussion, by the way. I'm trying to put together a file of the top robots (photos) from prior years to see if there's more to be learned on the "missing feature" front. I like the thought that a lot of it is about off-season "what if"-ing and keeping testbeds around--if only because we do that and theoretically will continue to improve at it as we pour or effort that direction. I hope. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I've allways believed the key was building a robot not to play the game, but to play a strategy. Then you break down the strategy and figure out the quickest, most efficient way to execute it. The over the bumper intake was successfull because it allowed instant acquisition of balls and removed the variable of the carpet, as did roller claws last year.
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think the over the bumper pickup was actually more successful because it allowed you to build a robot with a larger pickup, and therefor made it easier for drivers to pick up balls. We have a through the bumper pickup, and the ball made contact with the ground for the same amount of time as any over the bumper pickup.
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Experience is a great tool to have, but a better tool to have is funding and enough staff to implement it. If you have funding and staff you can by the extra material, build different prototypes and develop them into a perfect precision machine. With that funding you can build two robots and as one is bagged you can practice and develop the software and drivers ability. Having funding also can help if you can build a full field to do the practicing on. Once you have that you can make sure you pick your competitions so they are a few weeks in to let you work on the design and than your second competition is a few weeks later so you can fix from what you have learn at the last competition.
We have plenty of experience doing this for over 12 years and we know what we have to do but our funding limitations keep us from the best possible robot. Our work space has a low ceiling, we do not have a field to test on, we try to build some of the game pieces but it does not match a full built field. We have no professional engineers and our programmer has a full time third shift job. He has worked with students in programming but they are limited in what they can do. We come really close this year to beating the top ranked teams and we are proud of our success. What we found is that the teams are labeled into two groups, the scoring group and defense group. If your robot does not do well you are termed a defense robot and pushed into playing defense during game by the experienced teams and than during the finals you are only picked if you are all that is left. We are experienced at this. A few years ago we decided not to be a defense robot and threw out low power and low speed. We design (to the best of our ability) or robot to be fast and focus on the highest points in the game. Last years game the highest points were the top row so we tried to design for that, this year the heist points were the top hoop and the bridge control. To get these points you must be fast and accurate. With the limited resources we could not build multiple shooters and found that because of the differences in the balls we could not shoot consistently to the top hoop. It would have been nice to find this out before we went to a competition but you deal with it the best you can. We did solve our problem but it was not nearly as perfect as the top teams. We will still keep working hard to beat the top ranked teams and be thorns in there play during competition. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The very first step in winning the game-of-the-year is to work out how the game will play. We ALL know how Baseball is played (for example) and so oddball strategies like a Bunt, which aren't at all obvious, can win a game. We take the rest of Kickoff Saturday and play the game many, many times, learning as we go. What do the robots need to be able to do? Anything subtle we need to think about? Then we send everyone home to think on Sunday. Monday, we start by defining Capabilities. we determine which we need, and by Wednesday we can start on methods to achieve Capabilities. Then comes the prototypes - dozens of them. They are demonstrated by Friday (yes, FAST prototypes). Meanwhile, the drivetrain team has a rolling platform ready for Saturday. The drivers drive, drive, and drive some more. By week 5, the practice bot is driving and playing, we're assembling the competition robot. In the whole process, the simple things like scoring are designed to be simple and therefore quick. Any task that can be simplified, is. We want the drivers to focus on the things that can't be predicted, and the mundane tasks are either automated or very simple. This year, shooting and ball gathering is brainless, just drive to the right spot. Pushing down the bridge involves A) deploy mechanism and B) drive up to bridge. It lowers and you drive up without stopping. We go to ultra-low gear for balancing, but the balance itself is manual. Kind of like modern aircraft cockpit design: Reduce the pilot's workload so they can focus on what is critically important. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
In my experience, fast fabrication correlates to high performance. It doesn't really matter if it's through a sponsor or the team simply has a lot of machines at their disposal, but being able to go from the design phase very quickly to the assembly phase seems extremely important.
Our team has a manual lathe and a CNC mill in our machine shop which, is not really comparable to the resources at the disposal of "powerhouse" teams. In order to have enough time to manufacture a practice and competition robot, we had to finish the detailed CAD by the Monday of week 2. For us, time is simply that much of an issue. Contrasting this with 254 (for me, the local powerhouse team) reveals a large difference. Talking to mentor, I learned that they typically finished the CAD around week 3 or 4. This gives them approximately two to three times more time to prototype, strategize and design. It's hardly a surprise how dominant they were at SVR. I don't think that this trend of designing until late and manufacturing fast is unique to the poofs. To me, being able to get parts fast allows for extra time to prototype and design for the "powerhouse" teams that "normal" teams don't have. Quick manufacturing turnaround, to me, makes all the difference. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I also haven't people mention communication.
I feel like the powerhouses talk to each other. I'm not saying there's a magical forum where only the powerhouses post, but just through mentors knowing each other, students knowing each other, and alumni moving back and forth, the powerhouses must share ideas. So at the end of the day, you're not just seeing the best robot built by team xxxx, but you're see the product of ideas from team xxxx, team yyyy, and team zzzz, but each team takes this feature and implements it differently. This will obviously not play as much of a factor as having a full field or having quick machining capabilities, but I feel like somewhere down the line, talking out your ideas with multiple world class teams/mentors doesn't hurt either. - Sunny G. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Well that's the interesting thing. These ideas don't appear on Chief Delphi until week 2 or 3. Which is interesting.
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
As to why teams DON'T come up with those designs, there are a lot of reasons for this. Maybe they don't have the resources to build a great design they come up with. That always plays a factor. Maybe they misread the game; if you thought making hoops was all you'd need to do to win matches, and disregarded the bridge mostly, save for a simple manipulator, you'd find yourself on the short end of the stick. Or maybe they just don't have an extensive design process. They come up with a design that works well, but they don't refine it or verify that it is indeed the best design. Those are just a few reasons that come to mind. As to your third question, I think it may work both ways. A team becomes a powerhouse by thinking of out-of-the-box designs that win. They then continue to come up with those designs because they have the experience of a process that gave them a good design. It can take years of refinement to get the design process down. But one you've got it, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to lose. So long as things are documented well enough. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
What I've gotten out of my conversations with him is that the secret is that there is no secret: hard work and dedication on all fronts, with an honest eye to what needs improvement (be it fundraising or design capability or student recruitment or sponsor involvement or what-have-you). |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
The thing that has always stood out for me about the Elites is not just the things they build (plenty of non Elites used roller claws and were not nearly as effective last year) but how efficiently they use their time on the field of play. 2 minutes is a very short time and one of the most frustrating things I notice is when a team spends one minute of time doing something as trivial as acquiring a single game piece (I actually saw a team spend one whole minute trying to do just that last year trying to grab a tube from a human player during a match. I can understand doing something like that during a practice match but during a qualification match I would have benched the whole drives team for that) It's like everything is on a schedule and they make sure they are in position to meet that schedule every time.
The relentless pursuit of perfection does not simply come from designing "Killer Apps" as Ellery Wong on my team would call them but then too hone and perfect the proper use of them (if you gave the use of any of the Elites robots to any old team in FIRST it would be a decent robot than a dominant one because they wouldn't know how to properly use it to its fullest potential. They would not use the best strategies. They would not know how to get the most out of their alliance partners. They would not keep their plans on time because second tier teams just do not understand those things and it shows through every aspect of their team compared to an Elite. Like Dean says it's not just about the robot. 67 is a dominant team not just because they build terrific robots with Killer Apps. Not just because they have an adult coach, not just because they have great scouting and strategies, not just because they have great sponsors or school support or supportive parents or dedicated students. It's because they pursue and expect success in what they do. When I look and see the (far too many) teams who are the antitheses of that the first thing that always sticks out to me is the severe lack of urgency to anything they do. The chronic apathy they bring to the table. Never mind if they win or lose it's disturbing how readily they accept missing matches or doing embarrassingly incompetent thing on the field as if it was the whole point of coming out there in the first place. The Mids see what the Elites are doing and do some of it well but to make it to the Elite level have to take an honest account of themselves and shore up whatever is lacking and many Mids have grown to become Elite over the years because of this. Too many teams get bent out of shape by the presence of Elites because they are perceived as "pushy and mean". Type A's always come off as that but they have a pretty good idea what is needed to be done to win the match and are just trying to get the other teams on board with what to do. It's natural to resist people telling us what to do. We're independent creatures by nature it's perceived as weak to allow others to tell us what to do but if I have a large group of killers trying to break into my house to slaughter me and my family and Chuck Norris shows up at the back door I aint telling the guy "I got this." I might want to listen to the opinion of the team with all the blue banners on the matter. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I agree with much of what has been said here especially Koko Ed's thought that complacency is also at fault. I believe that many teams approach the game wrong if they, in fact, really want to win. They view it as "How can we do the task well, quickly and within our manufacturing means." The elites look at how to accomplish the task the BEST way (that means strategically). They MAKE their design work. They worry about the actual design process last--and rightly so. They know that you have to score, and quickly, to win. There have been phenomenally manufactured robots who have been horrible on the field because the designers were thinking more about manufacturing than strategy. Conversely, there are numerous instances where middle or lower level bots have made it to divisional finals because they had the right strategy and made a robust bot albeit not a manufacturing marvel.
I have thought about this thread for the last two years and think that the elites have figured it out early--game theory and design strategy trumps all else. Now, what makes them elites is that they are able to combine that with deep pockets and better manufacturing processes (iterations, prototypes, quick cnc turn around, practice bots etc.) Many teams have one or the other and then it becomes a hit or miss getting to the finals--you need both to consistently visit Einstein. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Start networking... fast. If you aren't sure if the "elite" team will talk to you (which 99% of the time they will), talk to some other teams/ They may have contacts with other teams, who know a guy who's uncle's brother's nephew is on that elite team. You never know, and all the extra connections help along the way. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
The real advantage I see in the over-bumper intake this year is not just the large pickup zone, but also the ability to easily pick up balls next to the edge of the field. With a through-bumper intake your bumpers prevent you from getting sufficiently close to the ball. The ball is practically just the right size for this, and I do not think that is a coincidence.
Also, when a team has little manufacturing capability at their disposal you will often see ideas shot down because they don't know how they could build it, so it must be impossible. My policy is that every idea is valid for the first two weeks (provided it isn't blatantly illegal or anything, of course). You'd be surprised the things I've seen made with drills and saws alone. During the first few days after kickoff there is no discussion of actual, physical designs. Instead, the team talks strategy, what we need to do, and how to play the game. Plus, a field is under construction right away. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
I don't think there is one single feature that separates the best from the rest (on the field). "Elite" or "powerhouse" teams, or whatever you call them, do a good job at everything (concept, prototyping, fabrication, maintenance, resources, practice, tactics, strategy, scouting, etc.). They are always looking for ways to improve as the season goes on, and they are able to do this year after year. In general, I think that what a team does the first week or so after kickoff is most important. That's when you set the course for what to build and how to play. After that is mostly how well you accomplish what you set out to do, and how well you can correct your shortcomings from week one of build. It would interesting to record all of your discussions when you were speculating about what the game will look like, and then play them back later. It would be much easier to design a robot if you could foresee how the game actually played out, but nobody has that luxury. If you could improve your speculation and imagination skills, you would have a better chance of building the right machine for the game, and not waste limited resources building dead-end features that aren't useful. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think this year the "elite" thing to do was the multi-purpose appendage. The teams who made their appendage do everything from ball collection, bridge manipulation, and aid in balancing. The ones like HOT, Bomb Squad, Titanium, Greyhounds, and countless others that get the job done, and done well.
Year to year, I think that what defines a powerhouse team would be, as stated before, the ability to receive a game and be able to sense what the key factors are, and rapidly prototype to prove that what you're about to spend the next 5 weeks refining is the absolute best idea for that game. It also doesn't hurt that they have dozens of Blue Banners as moral boosters :rolleyes: |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
MENTORS! Everyone has mentioned lots of valid things in this thread so far, but all of them come when your team gets more and more mentors involved.
Not mentors to design the robot. Not mentors to build the robot. But, overall mentor involvement enables teams to develop sponsors, find resources, prototype more parts, develop better strategy, work with more students, etc.... The one non-random pattern to all the "powerhouse" teams is that they have lots of mentors involved in their team. On our team we have 15-20 mentors/year. This allows our us to have different sub-groups that focus only on their area (ie; mechanical fab, design, electrical, programming, machining, chairmans, animation, etc..). When we are developing our strategy and initial designs, we are not worried about getting the animation completed or updating the website....that is handled by someone else. We try to grab as many potential mentors as we can....Students parents that are engineers, Former FIRST students, Teachers, etc.. Another powerful thing mentors bring is experience. Yes, real world engineering experience...but more importantly in FRC, the best experience is actual FRC robot design experience. Knowledge of the motors, electronics, gearboxes...where they can be used, how strong or rigid something needs to be. Great students can influence a team for a little bit, but mentors help keep a team strong over a long period of time...which is what is needed to become a "powerhouse" team. Just like Karthik has been saying for year in his Effective FIRST Strategies seminar at Champs. Step #1 - Develop a simple plan that fits within your teams capabilities. Step #2 - Execute that plan as well as you can. Step #3 - Show those capabilities to potential mentors / sponsors. Ask if they are willing to help improve your team by donating mentoring time. Step #4 - Utilitze new mentor/resources to improve your team. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Over time the performance of you team (be it on or off the field) will improve. Continue to iterate and improve until you are performing at the highest levels, sutain that level over a period of time and you too can be a powerhouse team. Now, I am not saying just any one will do. They have to be able to fit your team and the goals laid out for it. They need to be able to provide some tangible benefit to the team. Mentors are the most valuable resource in FIRST. When you find a "good" mentor, they will be able to provide something much more than a bunch of tools, machines, or money would be able to. Mentors = More Time, Experience, Opportunity, Resources, Students...Better Organization, Strategy, Ideas, etc.. It's really unlimited what coud come out of getting the right mentors involved with your team. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I believe a common thread to consistent high performing teams is that they "take their time" to get to a design decision, and then execute that as absolutely best they can.
Many teams will post that they have a design and are building within a few days of the game announcement. In many ways, that is detrimental. Take time up front to understand the game itself and the rules. Talk about strategies and how to possibly play the game. Determine the main aspects of the game and then assign a value to them to assist you when making design decisions. Think of a "perfect match" and then decide how much of that you could do. Try to think like a top team, ask yourself "what would team xxx do?". Talk about what you want the robot to do, make those decisions, then decide how to make the robot do those things. In many ways, you need to really understand the problem you are trying to solve before you design to solve it. Once you know what you want to do, work on prototyping the how. Use FTC, VEX, LEGO's, pipe, cardboard, CAD, whatever to experiment. Then make room (schedule, space, money, resource) for the most important systems and begin to get into details. This is where you need to then be realistic with your capabilities, resources, materials, budget, etc. Push and stretch, but be honest with what you can really pull off. A good design that is well done and robut will always beat an awesome design that is thrown together. When talking about the game, try to keep high level for the first part of the discussions. More on this one to follow. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
On our team, we do first focus on strategy and what a "difference maker" robot needs to be able to do, and from that we set "need to haves" and "nice to haves." As much as I like this system and I feel it's a good way to digest the game, I feel as if sometimes we limit ourselves by making something a "nice to have" because it is hard to implement. From my experience, whether or not our drives team has gotten time to practice with our robot makes a bigger difference than anything else. I joined the team in 2010, which was not a very successful year for us. I saw us finish late and struggle with one feature of our robot the entire season. Our drivers got practically no practice, and therefore we didn't really succeed at all. However, in 2011 we used known technology from previous years' robots and made a very successful bot that was SO CLOSE to winning two regionals. The key difference between these years? In 2011 we finished our bot very early (for us) and our drivers got a ton of practice, to a point where it was almost as if they operated autonomously. After seeing how these two years turned out, I hounded the team all year long that it was important to push hard and finish the bot early, because it is a LOT easier to identify problems and fix them at school, with all of the space and resources we needed (not to mention a lot more time). However, there still was an astonishing lack of urgency demonstrated from a good portion of the team. On our team of usually about 35 people, there always only seems to be a group of about 5-7 students who are carrying the team. I want to ask...how exactly do people on other teams get students motivated? Myself, a few other students, and the mentors on our team are constantly drilling urgency, but few ever seem to listen. I'm one of 14 seniors on my team this year, and most of our "key people" are seniors, and I'm thoroughly worried about the condition our team will be in next year. Any insight? How do the powerhouse teams get their students motivated to finish the bot so early?
Also, we seem to have a problem with the idea of a "concept lock," constantly changing our design way farther into the season that we should. How do the elites know when enough is enough in regards to designing? |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think what everyone has mentioned is true, but I have not seen anyone really mention the fact that most of the power house teams have been around for many years or least has a mentor that has been. They have seen what works and what doesn’t work for many of the tasks.
We are a small team that is 5 years old and by no means a powerhouse, but we learn a little bit more every year. This year we had a ball harvesting mechanism. This is the second bot we have built with one. Lunacy was the first. On Lunacy the team was starting from scratch trying to come up with conveyor material (something that would give tension but not break, have enough traction to pick up balls, stay centered on the rollers….). While the team had a system that harvested balls it took major design time an iteration getting it to work as it was thought up. When the team made it to our regional they saw that many of the powerhouse teams were using polycord belts (something our team didn’t know existed). Guess what, our harvesting system this year had polycord belts and worked beautifully and we got to spend most of our time working on our shooting system, and bridge lowering mechanism not seeing if shelf liner world work better than leather belts, or if rivets or sewing would hold this fabric belt together. We still have a long way to go to get to the powerhouse level, but every year we learn and get better. It takes a good strategy, design, and execution to get there. We are still at the level where we have to throw out strategies that we do not have to the resources to built in the given time frame, but hopefully we can attract more mentors, sponsors, and eager students to design to the optimum game strategy in the future. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
"shoot baskets" "drive up onto the bridge" "cross the barrier". By using those terms, you immediately began to design your robot, by thinking "shooter", "traction wheels", "big wheels", etc. While you may have ended up there with your design, you keep your ideas more open if you think about it like this - "get balls through the hoops" "be balanced by the bridge" "get to the other end of the field". By thinking of the key elements in these "higher" terms, you can be more open about the "how" - "how" to get the balls through the hoops (shooter, conveyor, tube system), "how" to get onto the bridge (drive, fly, be carried, crawl up the side), and "how" to get to the other end of the field (drive over barrier, drive over bridge, jump, get pushed, flip, walk). Some of these examples are a little extreme, but the point is to stay at a high level of discussion early so that you don't lock your thinking into a design idea too quickly. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
In my mind, the major difference between "powerhouse" teams and the rest of us comes from fast machining ability. It's not like they are all geniuses (or at least not much more so than the rest of teams). They just have more time than the rest of us, more experience than the rest of us, and better tools than the rest of us. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
If you talk to these "elite" teams I think you will find many of them are using basic manual mills, drill presses, lathes, etc. and making a lot of the parts themselves. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
We have access to a CNC mill in our lab and parts don't just pop out of the machine. It is a very involved and time consuming process to manufacture everything. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
While there are exceptions to every rule, I have found that many of the high preforming teams in my area either have sponsors that machine a large number of parts for them, or have many CNC type machines that allow them to manufacture complex parts themselves. While I don't really want to turn this into another "ethics of fabrication" thread, ability to manufacture quickly seems to be a common element in teams that preform at a very high level year after year. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Jane |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
This year, my team experimented with Swerve drive. We never would have been able to fully manufacture a prototype and competition bot without A) our CNC mill to make the modules, and B) one of our sponsors making us the frame. The machining was solid, the programming was a little sketchy, but overall, we had a style of drive train you don't find on the 'average' team. Our machining capability played a huge part in that. And because of that, we can continue to improve it. Should the decision be reached to do so. I agree, lets not turn this into an ethics of sponsor machining debate, but I have to agree that machining certainly helps. If you have access to CNC machines, laser cutters, water jets, etc. you'll be able to manufacture components of a higher caliber which, in the end, can lend itself to a higher caliber robot. It's not necessarily a direct correlation, but I certainly can't deny that it helps. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Hi-tech machining and fabrication is not the key; it's the simple act of understanding your capabilities and resources that will separate the high level team from mid level.
A box on wheels with a solid bridge mechanism coupled with drivers with lots of stick time would almost certainly have been a picking team this year or very valuable team to a top alliance. Also practice, practice, and practice. It's an axiom that Paul Copioli shared with me during the Overdrive season; a team that builds two simple robots will almost always out perform the best complicated robot with drivers with little practice. We had a bot with lots of potential that year but it needed a lot of time to tune and develop it properly. It was also a little difficult to operate. If we would have had a practice bot that year we would have done much better. After that year we started building two bots and you can see the improvement in our performance. Our drivers logged at least forty hours of stick time before their first regional and almost an equal amount before the second. Most drivers will never get more than a few hours of stick time every year. Our practice bot broke repeatedly but we learned from that and our comp bot never had a mechanical problem. Also being flexible during the design process. Our shooter took almost five weeks to develop this year and many on our team wondered if it would even work. We were going out on a bit of a limb. We designed our robot to accept our fling-a-pult but also to use a conventional shooter just in case it didn't work. I still have the parts for the conventional shooter sitting on my desk at the lab. The last thing those elite teams have is institutional memory. For example teams that played Aim-High had a huge advantage this year. They didn't have to develop the knowledge of picking up balls and moving balls through the robot, not as easy as it looks. They also have experimented and developed different drive systems and only need to adapt this knowledge to the new game. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
The majority of parts I end up making on our CNC could easily be made on a manual machine...if you were aiming only for functionality and didn't care about making fancy parts. We machined at least 50 unique parts on our CNC this year from week 1 to week 6, but the vast majority were nice looking parts that could have been cut on a bandsaw and sanded to fit, or made on a manual machine. It's a huge drain on time and resources to make parts like this, and it's not like its impossible to hold a tolerance on a manual mill.
CNCs aren't magic. Your parts aren't going to be made to spec if you don't know what you're doing on the machine and it takes a fair amount of time for every unique piece. This may or may no seem obvious, but it seems like a lot of people are under the impression that a CNC is going to solve all your problems. If you do have a CNC, chances are you're not doing too badly. But that's not because of the machine. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think many teams need to take the time to stop and look for weaknesses in their designs. Kinda related to Amdahl's law, you want everything to work fast, without there being a bottleneck somewhere.
You could have a really fast and accurate shooter, but that's no good if your ball-collecting mechanism is slow and clunky and can't actually catch and send balls to the shooter fast enough. The shooter would be hindered by the collector, so trying to make the shooter even better wouldn't do much good unless you improved the collector first. The opposite also applies. You could have a great collector mechanism that quickly grabbed balls off the field, but that's no good if the shooter takes a while to fire, or if it's not very accurate. The collector would be stuck doing nothing waiting for the shooter to fire a ball, as you can only hold 3 balls at a time. If it missed, the robot would need to spend even more time recollecting more balls to shoot. Basically, focus on making the weakest part of the robot better. Any team can do this. If you don't, all the other parts of the robot won't be able to perform at their best. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think I just need to clarify what I was saying.
I wasn't implying that you need machines to do well, or that having simpler machines put you at a disadvantage (most of our best seasons came years before we had a CNC mill or a sponsor to do parts for us). The point I was trying to get at is having specialized machinery speeds up the process at which special parts are made. Like it was said above, it takes longer to create these parts on a bandsaw or drill press and finish them to specification than through other methods. It's also easier to get higher precision from using CNC equipment than a drill press or bandsaw. I know THAT from experience. Faster, more precise machining means the robot is 'completed' earlier, means more time to program and practice with a robot. Which leads to better performance. Specialized machining methods do help. But it DOES NOT guarantee success. It's merely an aid. In my opinion, a very useful aid. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Don't underestimate the value of collaboration with other teams. During the build season, we routinely visit other teams, sometimes in person and very frequently Virtually using Skype or Adobe Connect or something like that. Plus e-mail, lots of e-mail. As an example, a bunch of us went to visit team 75 at the end of Week 1, where we saw a Bridge for the first time, as well as 75's awesome mechanism for getting over that bridge. We stole that idea lock, stock and barrel and used it to our advantage. We gave back some advice on making their wooden bridge act more like a metal bridge, which they implemented, allowing them to have realistic behavior to work with. We also got an idea for bumper mounting from another team, and explained our reasoning for going with a narrow bot instead of wide. Last year, we had a local business give a class in Leadership to 4 teams' student leadership. They learned what the job of a leader really is, and got some ideas on how to be better at it. I think all of us benefited from that. This goes on year after year. It is a give and take, and everyone benefits. Plus, there's Pizza! |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
With regards to the difference between actual FRC robot design and real-world design, I couldn't agree more with how useful familiarity with the FRC components is. When we went with mecanum drive last year, our electrical mentor (who we regard as a demigod) pushed us to use Jaguars, because he was confident that the Victor's measly 120Hz refresh rate would hamper effective driving, but we ended up discovering that it was perfectly sufficient, and seeded higher at CMPs than we ever had before. It ended up that his familiarity with real-world applications, and unfamiliarity with FRC applications, while extraordinarily valuable, ended up backfiring on us and cost us valuable time in build season. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I understand that there are certain features that powerhouse teams have that can set them apart from other teams, but i think there are a lot of power house teams that do not have the drop down collector. 1717, 148, 118, 399, 987 (Before this weekend), just to name a few, did not have this. I think the reason why a teams robot is "powerhouse" is because of how effective it is at the game. For example 16 did not have a fly wheel, they used a catapult, but because it was implemented correctly (effective), they were "powerhouse". Though i understand your point about common design features that powerhouse teams have.
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
We are by no means a powerhouse team, but these are things we found out that help, and that a lot of powerhouse teams, and we feel can benefit all teams.
1) The assumption that a CNC makes everything possible is false. I know for a fact that Team 4 Element has a CNC mill and lathe, and yet is not able to use them, because they lost their mentors who knew how to operate them. Furthermore, even 254 uses their regular lathes and mills often. If you read their build blogs, they do a lot of the machining work themselves. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=95347 2) Something that helped us do better this year, was pushing our motors to the limit. Instead of assuming a certain gear reduction was enough, for example we calculated how fast we wanted a ball to come up our elevator, figured out what gear reduction we wanted, and then figured out if we had enough torque. Do this with everything. DO THE MATH. 3) Build to your teams capabilities. If you have a mill or lathe, then design your robot around those machining capabilities. Also, it is easy to get sponsors if you work at it. Most people would be surprised how easy it is to get a 2D sponsor, and they can really help speed up your build. 4) Design within your teams capabilities. Using 254 as an example again, while many powerhouse teams decided to go with a turret, they instead went with a non moving shooter. Yet they made it effective, and I'm sure gained more practice time from that decision. 5) Gain from the experience of powerhouse teams. Reading the build blogs of 254 and 148, and the New Cool really helped our team to improve. Paying attention to CD also helps. For example, we went into the season not really sure how to build an effective WCD. We searched CD for help, and eventually found 973's CADs. They really helped us build a more effective WCD. Remember, innovations is made by copying and improving. 6) Work with other teams. Both teams will gain. Right now we are developing a swerve with 1515, and it has helped so much. Really, you can see how much this works, with partnerships like 148 and 217. Also, CD is kind of like this. You can get help from other teams. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
For anyone who can't make it to Karthik's 105-minute "Strategy" presentation in St. Louis on Wednesday, I'll go ahead and give you the first few lines in my notes from the last 2 years' presentations (summarized):
Ergo, if the first thing a team designed on the robot this year was a shooting mechanism then there's a good chance the intake mechanism was a secondary priority. That means there was less brainstorming time and more constraining factors given to that mechanism overall. I know that as Week 1 progressed, this is what wound up happening on my team. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
While 95 is not really a power-house team, lately we've been coming up with pretty good mechanical designs I think. I.e. the double roller claw in 2011 and an over-the-bumper collector this year. What we ask ourselves is "what would make it easiest for the driver?" We knew that reorienting the tube for placement, and having the widest possible mechanism to pickup balls, would make the drivers' life easier, so we implemented them. It's the question that we ask ourselves that generally results in a good design I think.
We did not miss the 'stinger' balance assist mechanism idea, but we did undervalue its importance and therefore did not build it :( |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Your team is only as good as it's weakest resource (students, materials, tooling, mentors, time, money, space). Powerhouse teams are alike in that they have all managed to have enough of these resource. Stuggling teams are short some place but each team may have a different resource that they need to try to increase. Teams that know that they have all the resources need to succeed, can work to build a robot that can do what is needed to win. Those that don't focus on being able to show up. Powerhouse teams aren't powerhouse because they build great robots, they are powerhouses because they build great teams. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
As a senior on a five year old team, I can vouch that our "powerhouse" status (we aren't, but bear with me) came when we a) started collaborating with the other powerhouse teams and b) started building two robots. We have been lucky to go to championships every year, and we went to IRI last year. The networking and collaboration with other teams has allowed us to use their ideas, and coop them for our robot.
So! As a member of a not-really-powerhouse team, if can build two robots, do it! Also, try to move away from the kit gearboxes and frame. Doing that forces you to design what you want, rather than what you're given. Big difference in attitude with that shift. And if you guys need anything, just ask 2415! |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
When I look at a robot, I divide the mechanisms into 3 categories. Drive-train/Grapples/Hangers/Ramp-wedges, devices which manipulate the entire robot. Conveyors/Lifts/Arms/Indexers, devices which manipulate the game piece indirectly, or when it is isolated from the field. Grippers/Intakes/Shooters/Ramp-arms, Devices which actively control the game pieces while in contact with the field, as well as portions of the field.
High quality robots always have an excellent drive-train, usually a high traction skid steer drive. I don't think many high rate teams work too much on a drive-train during the season, they build something similar to what they have done in the past, and make it as light as possible. The drive-train is something that shouldn't take much time to do because it should always be an iteration of a previous robot. Devices which manipulate the entire robot are typically focused on delivering as much power as possible, and being as sturdy as possible. Middle manipulators on high rate robots are usually simple and fast. The primary design goal of the middle manipulator is to avoid hampering the ability of the end manipulator in any way. The middle manipulator on most high rate robots avoids using available motors, power, weight, and time needed for the end manipulator without being sub par. The end manipulator/manipulators is what really sets the high performance robots apart from the average robots. The end manipulators for both acquiring and releasing the game piece have few design constraints with regards to weight, space, work-time, complexity, and motors due to the minimalistic nature of both the drive-train and middle manipulators. Many robots also have a special feature which adds design constraints not stated by rules. These design constraints are usually delt with using clever manipulation of the drive base and Middle manipulator, so that the end manipulator has as few constraints as possible. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
I believe the kit of parts allows all teams to leapfrog many steps and start running closer to the elite teams. I am from the pre-andy-mark era, so remember how much resources went into getting a working, bullet-proof drivetrain. With the kit of parts, every team can have a rolling chassis in week 1. If a team is struggling finishing the build season with a working robot, the kit of part drivetrain makes a lot of sense. A team can focus entirely on their scoring mechanisms. What is the penalty for the kit of parts chassis? Perhaps is weights more. however , you can get the custom gearing you want. You can even add a two speed gearbox. A working drivetrain wins games. A well tested scoring mechanism wins games. The pitfall for us non-elite team is not being able complete enough design iterations. When a robot is first tested on the final day of build, you know not enough testing will be done. By going with a kit of part chassis, a non-elite team can get more time to go through the design iteration process, more time to come up with that genius idea. I would argue, time shapes ones willingness to explore ideas. When time is scarce, attitudes quickly change, people become more narrow minded from the stress and the looming deadlines. Ideas are not fully developed because people don't have time for the research, prototyping, modeling and building. By focusing less on the drivetrain by using a proven successful design used by many, one has more time to focus on other aspects of the robot. My old team 766 frequently did drivetrains based off of kit of part drivetrains. It was a good tactic for an early start on the build season. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I don't think this has been said yet but if it has it's worth repeating.... I believe a lot of succes that powerhouse teams have comes from the amount of dedication from the mentors and students. They don't just have afew dedicatate mentors and students... All of their mentors and students are extremely dedicated
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I just wanted to correct something that was ssaid earlier about the key to last year being a roller claw. The real trick wasn't just a roller claw. It was a roller claw with a pnuematic release. The part everyone but the best missed was that the pnuematic release allowed faster and more accurate placement of the tubes.
Look at the best robots, they all had it. 33, 254, 148 etc... |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I dunno... I'm unconvinced that a roller claw was the killer feature in 2011.
Look at 1503. Single jointed arm, no rolling of the tubes, no floor pickup, and they still won 2 regionals and their division at CMP. IIRC that robot had 5 motors (4 drive, 1 to control the arm pivot), and a pneumatically-operated claw. It is easily the best FRC robot I've seen in terms of success vs simplicity. How did they do it? Their drivers were FLAWLESS. As its been said before. Having drivers with loads of stick time is the most important thing; in order to achieve that, you either have to have sufficient resources to build a carbon-copy practice bot, so they can get the stick time in between ship and the competitions, or you have to be FAST enough that they have that stick time before it goes in the bag. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
Quote:
a. The drive train must match the drive train on the robot. b. The basic functionality of the upper mechanical system must be mocked appropriately -- it must have the correct number of motors wired the correct way with the correct sensors, but doesn't actually have to accomplish any of the actual tasks. (Maybe it doesn't open as wide as it should, or lift as high as it should, or what-have-you...) c. It must be done incredibly fast -- like, as soon as you settled on your design, you should have a protobot together and handed to your programmers. Essentially, you want a "test bench" that mimics the actual robot functionality, and you want to give it to the programmers just about as fast as you can. ...and in the mean time you have a drive train that you built in the off-season that is awfully darn close to (or tweaked so it's exactly like) the competition drive train, so that your drivers can practice just maneuvering until they've got upper mechanical functionality to play with. Mind you, I'm not saying that this is what the powerhouse teams do, but I am saying that this is something that any team should be able to do, that will get them closer to "great" than they currently are. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
I think as well as what's been mentioned, what's popping up even more now is experience. I recall hearing about Einstein back in 2010, though I don' tquite know the valididty of the statement, that most of the reoccuring teams on Einstein maintain the exact same drive team each time they're there, within a 4 year period provided. Thus, one thing that could propel a team would be having a driver who knows the 'bot they're using and have competition pressure experience to draw upon.
|
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
Quote:
In our 6 year run we only repeated our base driver in 2010-11, our operator was the same in 2008-9, and our human player in 2007 was our 2006 operator. Other than that the only consitant drive team member during that run was our drive coach who has been the same since she took over the job in 2004. On my team you have to earn the the job every year by beating out everyone else in tryouts. We find that the competition to get the job works well as a motivator even though we would like to have multi-year drivers. We did have the same driver set for the four seasons from 1996-99 however, one of whom is a mentor on our team now. In 1998 they were so good we were accused of having adults off stage controlling the robot. FIRST requested our drivers to show up early on Saturday at Nationals as it was called back then to prove they were driving. After catching a bouncing ball on the fly that fell off the tower FIRST apologized to us and let our team continue to compete and secured the #1 seed at Nationals that year. The funniest part of this story is that the drivers involved only found this out last year. At the time the adult mentors on the team told them it was being filmed for a local station, and it only came out last year no one every told them. |
Re: The missing feature: A common thread
One thing we do, after the first week or so of figuring out the game, is we are not afraid to use cardboard and random pieces of wood to make prototypes. Many pieces are still made of wood up to a couple of weeks before ship date. We have made a fauxbot out of wood, with wheels to get an idea of how things will fit. Not everything needs to be metal, prototype your hearts out with whatever you have.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:28. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi