Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

This has always been a weak point of the manual. I don't expect it to be much better.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

No. When a robot tips, it is not standing normally on a flat floor. I think that's pretty obvious.

Now, with a flop-bot, it's normal stance is both vertical (starting configuration) and horizontal (playing configuration). Obviously, bumpers would be required in vertical configuration, as otherwise G01 comes into play (violation of R29). With me so far?

When the flop-bot drops down, the bumpers cannot move to stay in the Bumper Zone. For one thing, size becomes an issue; for another, see R30 on the (il)legality of articulated bumpers. So, bumpers are not entirely in the Bumper Zone when the Robot is standing normally on a flat floor. Not only that, but the Robot section of the Manual specifies maximum horizontal dimensions. G01 only applies to pre-match--but I would reasonably expect that the inspectors, having not inspected the robot in the flopped configuration (if they did, it wouldn't pass), would call on the head ref to issue a red card under T03.



FYI, the full computer part has been relaxed a little, after 359 successfully got one onboard without breaking any rules in 2010. Admittedly, it was more of an equivalent of a computer... but it's now a little bit more possible.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

No more of these either...
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/13515

Also, flippy-floppy:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14204

And just because it's 2002, and I'm nostalgic:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/13459

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

One of the most effective machines out there, and it only gets a "just because"???

60's strategy was simple: drop a tether at the start of the match (I think it was shock-corded segments) and go racing out to grab two goals and drag them into their scoring area. That's when the fun began. They'd lift both goals, increasing their total weight to something like 490 lbs--try breaking traction with that! Then when someone tried to push one of the goals back into the neutral zone, or to their own zone, the merry-go-round started turning. And turning. And turning. For the rest of the match--or until whoever it was got bored and went to bug someone else, like whoever had the third goal. The human players would then let fly, if a robot didn't load the goals first, and try to score a few.

Also, look closely--that's not a WCD, but WCD was at least loosely based on that drive and came out as WCD two years later when 60 and 254 collaborated.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

It could have gotten an "eh I found the 45 cleated tank treads photo; I think I'll stop searching through these 96 pages of 2002-related photos now", but luckily for you, I had nothing better to do at the time. :cool:

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

I don't suppose someone has a video, I would love to see that!

I guess you could still argue that it's 'playing' configuration is not the normal configuration, and thus you would not need bumpers. <sarcasm> Such a shame that FIRST does not want us to 'lawyer' the rules. </sarcasm>

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

In 2002, 190's robot had a removable box that contained all of the necessary components to be considered a "robot" (the definition back then was only that it had to contain a minimum amount of electronics and be able to communicate with the field). It was velcroed into the chassis.

During the team's first several matches at Granite State that year, the drivetrain wasn't working, so they just stuck the small "robot" box in the home zone and left it there. Because it qualified as a robot, it counted for the bonus at the end. They ended up winning several matches, simply because their opponents didn't notice/remember the robot was there and scoring endgame points.

190's robot that year also had the filecards like 71 used for their "doom-march", except that the WPI robot drove to their final spot on wheels and then dropped them to stay put, making them effectively immovable. At the end of championships, 190 challenged 71 to a pushing match, the quintessential immovable object vs unstoppable force. The set up the robots, 71 started walking....


...and the carpet ripped.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Why has Kevin (one of 71's 2002 drivers) never told me this story??? :)

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmAnkYDUQM

Doesn't show them spinning much, since 71 is hooked on.

I wish I had saved the 2002 Einstein matches to my computer. They were hosted by NASA for a long time but disappeared awhile ago. The semifinal matchup was one of the greatest set of matches in FIRST history. Quintessential "irresistible force meets immovable object" matchup. The finals with 180 vs 71 were nearly as good as well.

A lot of people really hated 2002, but I loved that game. There were so many amazingly well engineered robots that solved the challenge in a lot of different ways. 60's robot is perhaps the most gorgeously sleek robot of all time. We'll probably never see another game in which there were multiple robots that were practically unbeatable.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

SPAM added a deployable lexan wedge (legal that year) at the championship to counter the heavy lifting / file card grabbing robots. When you drive the wedge under another robot, all their weight and traction is transferred to you. Only used it once, against Wildstang in the Division Semi's I think, pushing them across the field.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Don't forget team 308's double goal grabber. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14111

They too had metal cleats and a nice design. They were teamed with SPAM and their alliance captain team 311 for the Einstein Finals in 2002.

As a matter of fact I think that '02 was the last year there was an Einstein division as well as having the finals on Einstein as well.

Ahhhhh EPCOT was definitely neat.........

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

There were quite a few robots to lift 2 goals in 2002.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

We had a driver with a significant disability in 2010, and we worked out an arrangement with FIRST that made it possible for him to drive. The following year some new language appeared in the rules that might have been triggered by our case.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

In a practice match at an event (I think it was L.A.), 60 challenged 330 to move them and their two goals. 330's third goal grabber (an angled piece of aluminum with notches for the poles of the goal) hit the floor, and 60 ended up against their own player station wall, goals and all.

They didn't play each other at all during the matches that counted, though.