Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

Funnily enough, we were almost 95% accurate in GTR regional (When we did autonomous), and through some unfortunate mistakes in programming, electrical, placement and of course, chance, we did not do very well in Archimedes. It was luck that brought us in an alliance with 1114 and 2056, two perfectly capable autonomous robots (Who we fed balls to).

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

I agree that the brakes are not strictly necessarily, that's why they were the last item on the 'if possible' list. My reasoning for adding them at all was i felt that they were a low cost item that could easily help with defense as well as balancing. I saw autonomous as necessary because many teams didn't (or couldn't) have a feedable autonomous, so without an auto, your alliance would be left with a max of 6 pts. out of your 2 auto balls, as apposed to the 8 pts (or worse, they would end up on the bridge). you could get from you scoring them in auto. I think that the primary purpose of the bot is to play in elims, and seeding higher can only increase your chances of doing that.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

From looking at this years game, I think team 16 nailed the minimum competitive concept. What they executed in the finals of Galileo didn't require all the complexities their robot had, but the strategy was perfect as a 2nd pick.

Their robot:
-Consistently made both autonomous shots for 12 points
-Was much quicker than 80% or more of the rest of the robots on the field
-Could grab balls off the ground like nobody's business, and quickly release them.
-was small, and could get across the field and up the bridge.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

While I agree that 16 was a great robot they were the complete opposite of minimum. From their swerve drive, catapult, and full width pickup it was an extremely effective yet complex robot. Minimum competitive robots are ones that are extremely basic/simple and any team with limited resources, tools, and budget can produce in the 6 weeks.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

I think the drive that we built this year was very simple and could climb the barrier pretty easily. It uses mostly stock kit parts with the addition of some 1/8" angle aluminum. It uses 36 teeth sprockets on the wheels to slow it down a bit from the standard KoP configuration.



This drive worked really well for us.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

I posted about their strategy, not their implementation.

A minimum competitive robot could do the exact same things that team did, without all the complexity.

Swap swerve drive with some AM mecanum and you've reduced the complexity to something any team could do, while still maintaining mobility.
Even skid steering would suffice, as long as the driver has enough practice with the robot and it's geared appropriately.

Remove their catapult feeding mechanism, replace their one reloadable catapult with two non-reloadable. I'm fairly certain a team with limited resources could tune two catapults to be very consistant. The point here is that you need to make your two shots in autonomous, and if you don't aim high you won't get picked.

A full width feeding mechanism shouldn't be too difficult to implement, it doesn't even have to be that. It has to be quick, and able to reverse to spit balls out on the other side of the field. A bonus implementation is if it can be extended outside the frame perimeter.

As far as what goes into that robot, four jags, three/four spikes (two for the catapults, one for the feeder, and possible one for a compressor), an extra controller for a feeder that needs to extend outside the frame perimeter (maybe another spike?).
Four AM mecanum wheels, four gearboxes. Two catapults, a feeder, maybe a compressor. Slap it all on a kitbot frame that isn't full sized, and you've got a minimum competive robot.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

Wide/square orientation 6WD or 8WD would be even better. Done correctly, it would still be able to cross the barrier without any issues.

All else considered equal, having a wide robot was the easiest way to move up pick lists in 2012.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

So for minimums here. They can be adapted to work with any game

First read & understand the rules. Understand what your robot can do to play the game. Make sure your drive team understands the game, can communicate with & work with its alliance partners. This is one thing that can be done even with minimum physical resources.

Second make a robot that can move reliably. It needs to be able to cross the bump or pull down the bridge & cross it. If it moves reliably it can be the second robot on a balance. along with understanding the rules, it can play defense.

Third it needs to be able to score something in hybrid. Points lost there it can never get back.

Do these three & you have a good chance of a second pick. If your are an alliance captain then you are already doing more the minimum

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

This is not true. If a team hits two low baskets 100% of the time they are more valuable than my robot that always hits one ball in the top and occasionally the second. Several teams including 2168 decided to aim for the middle hoop in hybrid because their accuracy in the middle hoop was much greater than the top hoop and only worth 2 less points. Another strategy for aiming low is that you don't interfere with your partner. At GSR in elims we were on an alliance with two other robots who all claimed to have gone 2 for 2 in the past several matches. We all setup for the start of our match and only 12 points were scored for our alliance because our shots hit each other. A nice feature of going low is that you are out of the way of everyone else. 16 had a great catapult but it was never 100% accurate. I think a lot of people including myself have underestimated exactly how hard it is to reach the top basket. If you are building a minimum competitive robot that just shoots in autonomous you are better off aiming low with high accuracy. I would always pick the consistent hybrid robot that isn't in my way.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

The reason FRC2168 aimed for the second goal often in elims was to avoid interference with our partners, our accuracy for the top goal was actually higher than the mid goals. You'll notice that in the offseason we stuck with just shooting for the high.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

I basically agree. I focused my first suggestion purely on seeding high while ignoring factors that would help a team get picked. In my response to you, I focused on getting picked and ignored seeding. In both cases I was trying to suggest the minimum for a particular goal. In a real season it certainly makes sense to consider both. This season was tricky since the eliminations weren't quite the same game as qualifiers, so teams had to decide what to focus on.

Agreed.

The concept I described was long because it's less tippy, which should increase balancing success rate and improve seeding. I was going for seeding high at the expense of being a more attractive pick. Long is probably unnecessary in that concept since it doesn't need to be tall.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

Having watched them perform at the IRI, I tend to agree. While their concept is not particular good at seeding high, they picked a very valuable attribute to excel at and thus nearly garuanteed being picked.

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

Simplicity & Golden Rules from Simbotics 1114 Presentation
Golden Rule #1: Always build within your team’s limits. Evaluate your abilities and resources honestly and realistically .Limits are defined by manpower, budget, experience . Avoid building unnecessarily complex functions
Golden Rule #2: If a team has 30 units of robot and functions have maximum of 10 units, better to have 3 functions at 10/10 instead of 5 at 6/10
Please list your assumptions, strategy to seed high, estimate of a winning score, and what robot design elements would achieve this score
Background Information for Sophomore FRC Team 3548 - Team consists of 1 sophomore coach, one electrical engineer with Labview programming and robotics experience on teams 47 (2 years) and team 1 (2 years) and 8 students, only 4 of which will be involved in the robot build . High School coach has access to woodshop but no metal cutting tools (lathe or mill) on site. Engineer has new access to water jet at work location 30 miles from office location due to GM sponsorship.
Assumptions: 1) Minimal parental involvement, 2) no time to prototype shooter concepts, 3) Shooter designs will have to access water jet limitations (2 dimensional) and be designed and mostly built by engineer and Andy Mark parts , 4) Robot build will consume all time available, 5) drive team practice before first event less than one hour, 6) Budget limits encourage strong use of KOP components, 7) Additional funds estimated to be $1000 from school, 8) Team resources prevent building of single wheel, hooded ball shooter design.

Midpack robot design goals: 1) Robot drivetrain must never fail – no one wants to pick a sophomore team whose robot fails on the field!, 2) Shoot 2 balls during autonomous and 6 during hybrid period, 3) Must be able to lower bridge in order to score cooperation points, 4) Be able to shoot balls from opponents side into team side to assist in team point scoring, 5) Will not typically go over middle barrier, 6) Part of elimination field of 24 robots in both Michigan District events, 7) Will not attend Michigan State Competition due to budgetary constraints but choose instead to go to third Michigan District event ($500), 8) Take maximum advantage of other FRC team's learnings in first two weeks to help with design direction and order and read FRC book on robot design that featured shooting mechanism's from previous FRC competition (2006?).

Robot Design Elements: 1) 6WD chassis. Read Simbotics presentation on “gold standard”. Will use 6 inch KOP wheels. First time team using 6WD configuration. Will use robot long design configuration for ease of building for students and because of limited number of balls being picked up.
2) Ball collector – used Chief Delphi and Youtube to help design. Team 245, Roch Adams, recommended using ¼ id tubing with barb inserts from McMaster-Carr for belt design. Will use 550 motors with Bane Bot transmissions (new for us). Team 1 recommendation of 64:1 transmission ration accepted. Read instructions for breaking in transmission on Chief Delphi. Stretch factor of 5% on Chief Delphi initially used and found to be too tight. Motors smoked. Reduced friction in rollers. Reduced friction in system. Belt tension reduced to make system operational (thanks Paul C. - Thunderchickens).
3) Bridge Arm – Chief Delphi thread indicated that 20 lbs at given distance required. KOP PG-71 gearmotor sufficient with 3:1 ratio. Chain driven system used with purchased Andy Mark Hubs and sprockets. Only Bridge Arm testing was to lift robot in shop – no measurements made. Bridge arm very successful in Waterford District event.
4) Ball Shooter Design – using information gathered from Chief Delphi, design 4 wheel, dual axle, 6 inch past KOP wheel, direct driven by incorporating Andy Mark SimCIM product on both drive axles. Control backspin by varying motor speed ratio (Chief Delphi). Gravity feed ball between wheels via ramp. Use water jet capability to fashion two end plates that will marry the shooter system.

Michigan District Results. Waterford -There is no measurement scale at school so we arrived and weighed in at 125 lbs (first time over weight due to all robot features) . FRC Waterford Captains Team instrumental in helping us lose 5 lbs in about 2 hours . Missed first match due software issues. Ball collector mechanism design still under development. Very successful in lowering bridge and gaining co-opertition points. Ended event at 8th alliance position. Never dreamed we would be in a position to select other teams . Consulted with Team 1 to arrive at pick list. Team alliance not strong – eliminated quickly from afternoon fun.
Michigan District Results. Troy – This is the toughest Michigan District Event. For some team’s it is their third or fourth event having gone outside of Michigan to compete in the Midwest events. Now our robot could shoot and score consistently (50%) in both hybrid and operator controlled. Robot is fully operational. It’s fun not to have to be building your robot but enjoying the venue. End up being ranked around 24 but not selected for the afternoon. Next year let’s skip Troy and go to Livonia where the competition is reported to be easier!

So, Ike, how did you have us ranked? Were we a Midpack robot or a MCC? BTW, thanks for starting the thread. It gave me a chance to rethink about what happened this season.

Some lessons learned:
1) Need to recruit some varsity athletes for the team (see Simbotics presentation)
2) Need more adult support.
3) Chief Delphi support from FRC teams is invaluable for Mid-pack competitive robotics team.
4) FRC teams are willing to share and help your team build a competitive robot!.
5) Familiarize yourself with the Andy Mark website! Order parts early if possible to beat the rush (FP-0673 motors).

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

Here's a snapshot of our ball shooter design prior to robot installation

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=102704

Re: [MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012
 

First thing's first: a reliable, strong drivetrain and somewhat trained drivers (reliable comes before strong)

Then you'll want good ball pickup capability. Again, with a little driver practice, picking up balls is relatively easy.

Shooting will need to be very accurate. I'd go with a mid shooter that makes the shot 90% of the time instead of a high shooter that makes the shot 50% of the time. In order to really be competitive, low basket scoring won't be seen much. Mainly middle or high, whichever one they're more accurate on.

A bridge lowering-mechanism. The need to get on a bridge to balance is crucial, and the need to cross over to the other side is also helpful, so a wedge-like bridge mechanism will make the robot much more useful.

Other things: A wide robot would increase chances of getting picked. A decent autonomous would also help. A smart strategy also is a nice thing.


Finally, my MCC: A wide bot with a relatively large intake (about 21 inches wide) that can accurately score balls in at least the middle hoop, with a wedge bridge-manipulator that allows them to go to the other side of the field and get on the bridge.