Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

biggest issue i see is how not to violate the bumper perimeter rules.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Look at the flop-bots in 2008--they were allowed to flop, and yet bumpers were mandatory (though as I recall, as a % of the bumper perimeter).

Admittedly, the requirement that the bumper perimeter not change through a match is a tough one to get a flopping robot around. That's new since 2008, but I don't think it's a reflection on any team(s).

What were the smaller robots used for im not familiar with the year featured in the video

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

In 2002 the endgame was to have your robot touching some part of your alliance zone. These tethers were used to extend backwards from the robot, allowing you to reach your own zone from the end of the field. Specific rules can be found here.

Where thy driveable

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Demolition squad (Motorolla team 267 from South Florida, no longer competing) started vertically and then dropped down to drive in 2000; that's the first one I recall. I'm pretty sure they were hinged at one end so they would open up to drop down, and then to hang on the bar they closed back up.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Yes, no, and maybe.

Some tethers were actually full-size robots that drove back to their home zone. This left goals vulnerable to being moved. Some were tape measures or similar devices that could be extended under power. (The "maybe" part.)

Others were dropped when the robot started moving at the beginning of the match, and stayed put. (The "no" part.)

And others were fully driveable, with directional control. (The "yes" part.)

However, it should be noted that the endgame was significant, but couldn't beat having a bunch of balls in a couple of goals held in your scoring area. And sometimes tethers were run over and damaged, or beaten around, or moved, by the larger robots.

Sounds confusing

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Part of robot is in zone=points

No part of robot is in zone=no points

Not that difficult

I meant driveable vs not driveable

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Driveable vs not driveable--I think you really want "steerable" vs. "non-steerable". Some teams just parked their main robot in their home zone. Others dropped a tether before they left their home zone. The latter are "non-steerable".

Non-steerable tethers also included the tape measures I mentioned earlier and any other means of "going home" that once launched could not be redirected. I would say, probably about 30% of tethers, maybe more, fell into this category (and the tape measures were far too common... but that's a story for another day.)

Steerable tethers would drop off a robot and be driven home just like a miniature robot, steering and all. 330 carried 2 wheels driven by Globe motors and attached by a long electrical cord and "scissors lift", for example--drive it forwards, wait for it to stop bouncing, full-speed for home zone and dodge traffic all the way. Other teams had something similar.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

In 2005, we (1058) basically put a full computer on the robot (motherboard, hard drive and all) and that was made illegal in 2006, mostly by power regulations. Whether it's direct or not, I don't know.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

I am sure that some words will be defined much better. This year, some teams met what they thought the word met, but the GDC seemed to disagree (118's bridge latching device). Because of this, and possibly others, words will probably be defined so there is less confusion.
There WILL be a section of the manual from now on defining every word used.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Maybe. The manual last year was an experiment to see if they could not use the glossaries of manuals past.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

What about this year, with robots flipping when going on the bridge. If your robot could still move when it was flipped sideways or had a way to right its self up, wouldn't the robot be breaking the bumper rule?