2002 Robot Design
 

This is going way back all the way to the 2002 game, Zone Zeal.

I came across of a forgotten picture of our team's robot in 2002.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img...1ed4bc0a_l.jpg

What caught my attention was what I found in the front and back of the robot. I realized that the robot started vertical and then fell forwards to have a longer drive base. (You can see the curved back plate on the left side of the picture and the rubber pneumatic brake which slowed the impact with the floor on the right side of the picture.)

I know 71 had a very similar design, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmAnkYDUQM but were their a lot of robots like this, or were 71 and 449 the only ones?

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

67 in 2004 and 2005.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

16 in 2008

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

2122 in 2008

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Does anyone know who the initial team was to come up with this? Was this change in orientation prominent before the 2002 season?

I see why this technique could not be used in 2009, but what stopped it from happening in 2010-2012?

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

There were others as mentioned above. In recent years, rules about starting configuration and game configuration have changed making 'flot bots' illegal.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

What other rules have directly resulted from robots or teams?

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

I'm sure there are numerous rules that have resulted from teams in a gray area. Whether or not FIRST created those rules to make flop bots illegal or it was just part of the game is another story.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

No metal contacting carpet was a change that was obviously in response to a number of teams in 2002 with metal cleats/treads/spikes/etc.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

No more filecards...

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Allowing only one solenoid valve to feed each air cylinder/actuator. In 2009 we fed our catapult cylinders with 2 parallel valves per cylinder. The inspectors REALLY did not like it and nearly DQ'ed us, but it did not violate any written rule. The following year they added the one valve = one cylinder rule, so we refer to it as the Titanium Rule, but there have probably been other teams which have done it.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

340 in 2005.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

I played around with the idea of a rebound rumble flop-bot. The frame would have been hinged and it would have folded to take up less space on the bridge. It would have started with the frame folded and everything on the upper frame would fit within the footprint of the lower frame satisfying the frame perimeter with the lower frame defining the frame perimeter. when it folded down, the upper frame would remain within the allowed envelope for deployed mechanisms and would have given us the same wheelbase and configuration as our final design, which was wide robot with four 12" pneumatic wheels. Unfortunately, the penalty, in weight and complexity, was too much given our resources.

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

No intentional tipping resulted from team actions in 1993. I want to say I've heard that it was one or two specific teams, but I can't for sure.

Metal on carpet as mentioned--though 71 gets the credit, a lot of teams had metal.

71 is the motive behind a rule on intentionally detaching robot parts, though. I don't remember seeing it lately, but it was their 1997 design that triggered it.

No wedges/optional bumpers resulted after the 2005 season. In one of the divisional QFs, there was an extremely rare double DQ (red cards hadn't been introduced yet)--2 robots with angled sides were called for intentional tipping, on opposite alliances. Multiple teams on the champion alliance carried defensive wedges. But the GDC realized that if they didn't put something in place to protect the offensive robots, there would be an outcry... so they allowed teams extra weight and volume for bumpers if used--only if they were a particular design. Bumpers became mandatory in 2008. The alliance-colored bumpers came into play in 2010--after a team asked Q&A in 2009 if they could do so and the answer came back "No".

Re: 2002 Robot Design
 

Back in 2007, You'd get an endgame bonus for having robots lifted off the floor a certain distance. During the regional circuit, the rules didn't say anything about having a robot starting an elevated position.

Our team took advantage of the loophole: http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2007il_qm42

Needless to say, FIRST changed the rules soon after.

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?

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.