Chief Delphi
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The Quest for Einstein (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134399)

Citrus Dad 04-11-2015 15:25
Re: The Quest for Einstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencenuetzel (Post 1502053)
1678 only stacked 5 high with a can. Their main focus was making sure they had those two extra step cans. At the beginning of the season they were working on trying to get all 4 cans from the step before they scrapped that idea.
(Please correct me if I am wrong...) 1671 was probably better at stacking which is one of the main reasons why this alliance was the world champions.

1678 is definitely good at identifying the niche they need to play at the highest levels of competition.
Yes, 1671 was better at stacking, which is why they outqualified us at Sacramento (yes, they did!). We sold 118 on the cangrabbing niche plus the ability to run auto (another niche), so 118 selected us instead.

Citrus Dad 04-11-2015 15:29
Re: The Quest for Einstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noudvanbrunscho (Post 1502054)
You won't become 2nd seeded in a division with 'only' your focus on a cangrabber. It was a perfect robot with the fastest can grabber i've seen. (correct me if i'm wrong)
Indeed, the most deserved champions.
We got 2nd because of our reliability (which is critical to getting to Einstein). Several teams were putting up more points than us in single matches. In 2014 and 2013, our consistency match to match was the difference as well. We have never been "brilliant" in a Champs match. (Our 2014 Inland Empire finals with 399 counts as our one exception.)

Citrus Dad 04-11-2015 15:34
Re: The Quest for Einstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug G (Post 1502062)
But what 1678 was able to do, they did perfectly. Every match.. Seriously, I'd love to see the scout data for the standard deviation of their capped stack points per match. Incredibly consistent at the regionals I saw. And Can Grabbing?? How many can battles did they lose? I know they didn't always need to use them, but did they ever not win a can battle? Maybe they did, but I never saw it happen.

Getting back to the OP... It has been said plenty of times already... Practice, Practice, Practice. Find a way to get the students time with the robot. Ever since we started emphasizing the amount of practice time with our robot (or a 2nd bot), our level of competition skyrocketed. This last year we had students practicing several times a week starting in week 4. Granted, our robots have been pretty simple, but we still can compete at a high level. At some point we will "up" our game when it comes to robot design and when we do, we should be able to get further in division elims. Someday...
And 701 lifted there game this year so that they made a Regional final as the captain and qualified for Champs. And we saw that again at Capital City Classic when we combined to score over 220 points

William Frost 09-11-2015 00:41
Re: The Quest for Einstein
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug G (Post 1502062)
But what 1678 was able to do, they did perfectly. Every match.. Seriously, I'd love to see the scout data for the standard deviation of their capped stack points per match. Incredibly consistent at the regionals I saw. And Can Grabbing?? How many can battles did they lose? I know they didn't always need to use them, but did they ever not win a can battle? Maybe they did, but I never saw it happen.

Getting back to the OP... It has been said plenty of times already... Practice, Practice, Practice. Find a way to get the students time with the robot. Ever since we started emphasizing the amount of practice time with our robot (or a 2nd bot), our level of competition skyrocketed. This last year we had students practicing several times a week starting in week 4. Granted, our robots have been pretty simple, but we still can compete at a high level. At some point we will "up" our game when it comes to robot design and when we do, we should be able to get further in division elims. Someday...
This is a screenshot of our scouting app that shows a graph of the number of totes we stacked throughout our matches on Newton. The lowest data point is 15 (Three stacks of five) and the highest is 21 (Three stacks of five and one stack of six).

Citrus Dad 09-11-2015 18:13
Re: The Quest for Einstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJohnston (Post 1442250)
Everybody has their opinions about what it takes to reach Einstein each year. Many teams make that their annual goal. Most don't make it. A few make it regularly. We often refer to those teams "elite." Each year we can't wait to see what sort of " robotic genius" teams like the Cheesy Poofs produce.

Two years ago, 948 made it to St. Louis for the first time ever - in its 11th year. We then had a very strong run through Archimedes, losing only one or two matches and earning an alliance captaincy. Of course, we met the Poofs in the quarter-finals and watch the rest of the event from the bleachers...We had a fantastic year and now realize we *can* compete at the highest levels. This year, our eyes are set on Einstein again... We are not "elite," but would like to develop our team so that we can annually compete at an elite level.

I know there are many teams out there much like ours. So, I'd like to pose the question:

What do folks think it takes to to annually compete at this level? What should clubs like mine do in order to accomplish this?
I brought the OP back to the top again to refocus the discussion. I think the keys are 1) Be reliable and consistent at the task. You almost never see 254 or 1114 fail in a match. The first corollary is to problem solve quickly and efficiently; the second is to institute check lists to avoid the obvious failures (which cost us in 2013.) 2) Identify the highest value added tasks beyond the primary offensive tasks. Every top team can run the auto routine at the highest level in a Regional. Again, being reliable at that task is key. 3) Look for niche roles with high value and how that will fit with the strongest robots.

948 had a great full court shooter in 2013 that was among the most consistent at the task. I think consistency was the issue that kept 948 from going to the next level. In comparison, 1983 was quite as spectacular a scorer, but was more consistent and got 2nd in Curie that year. If we didn't both have ground pick ups, we might have allied that year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi