Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

At the regional level, I saw very few (if any) robots who had reliable Canburglars, but didn't have other elimination worthy functions. Most teams that I saw who were picked for Canburgling, would have been picked otherwise for their stacking/capping abilities. As such it's hard to evaluate the claim.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

New York Events had a few teams that were picked solely for their ability to grab cans from the step, whether that be autonomous or teleop. 4203, 174 come to mind. These were the last selections, however, at both events. All the alliances below #1 needed scoring robots for their third robot.

These robots also grabbed during teleop (which was fine for these events, no alliance was grabbing all four during autonomous, and only one or two alliances were capable of more than 4 fully capped stacks).

I also can't think of a robot at either event capable of grabbing containers from the step that was NOT selected.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I agree that a "pure" canburglar, with no scoring capability, would have been a long shot for both first and second picks at nearly any regional. Burgling a can without the ability to right it and deliver it exactly where the alliance needs would not meet MCC criteria. That said, even most of the unreliable burglars I saw picked or got picked - for scoring ability. Also, while the materials list for a canburglar is pretty simple, the tolerances for a mechanism that reaches across three rows of totes to retrieve, release, and (preferably) orient an RC are trickier than for a passable forklift, boat lift, or even side lift. That is, anyone who can build a can burglar is going to be able to put something else useful on the robot.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I'd say a MCC at most regionals is a kit drive train, a simple lift (using REV extrusion, 80/20, or VersaFrame), and then lots of human player and drive practice.

Gets you 40 coop points (round it to 32 on average, say you missed a couple), and somewhere from 30-40+ noodle points (with proper strategy/good partners), and if you're well practiced a few small stacks for 20 points or so.

That would rank you reasonably well at pretty much any regional outside the extremely competitive ones, and pretty much guarantee playing on Saturday afternoon in some capacity.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

1726 made a robot that was able to achieve the goals you stated for a MCC robot. We knew that cans were where the points are, and decided to make a robot that could deal with cans effectively, and also deal with totes less effectively. We figured most other teams would be making stackers that would work at the chute door (yes, chute door) so we decided to make our be able to get totes from the landfill for small stacks, and be able to cap other teams' taller stacks. It worked pretty well, we were in eliminations in our regionals, although we ended being the highest ranked unpicked team in our division at Champs.

The big claw works well for grabbing cans, and can upright them with some practice. It can also grab a tote if needed. The small lower arm will lift a tote onto another, and can make a stack of two relatively easily, but a stack of 3 or 4 is pretty sketchy to move around without falling over.



Bonus points for the relatively low level of fabrication skills and materials needed? The judges at Alamo thought so. And it makes the game interesting to play, every match is different if you're the capping robot

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I would guess that Michigan districts are particularly competitive. Adam may have been referring to earlier competitions or less competitive ones.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

Actually most Michigan district events were not particularly competitive due to an influx of new teams. Most district events were about 25-30% new or 2nd year teams, and some were as high as 50% young teams (which typically are still learning how to make an effective robot). Of the 18 district events, some were pretty effective.

Now I will state that at several events can burglars brought cans over that did not end up being utilized.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

Cans from the middle were completely unnecessary at events where the two best robots together could only make 3 stacks.

There were both regionals and districts where this was the case. This might seem crazy now, but in Week 1, if your robot could consistently make one stack, you were very good. Many people don't remember that because 148, 987, and 624 competed week 1, but Dallas wasn't the only event that week.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I think TORC is MCC... :)
(At least on good years)

Simple elevator, tested multiple arms, from rigid flippy dogs, but stuck with articulated air, just as it seemed to have more conisistant picks. Easier to get out of trouble too when a miss-load occurred.

Omni H drive, but needed to articulate side wheel for crossing scoring platform, which required a little more design and fab, than a MCC.

Simple reliable tape measure can burglar, that never missed, grabbed one can, and getting 4 cans up on an alliance = blue banner just about anywhere.
https://youtu.be/710_8mUA-0g

We had capability of 6 high stacks, but in the first event, 5 high was fine.

Seven different automodes but almost never used them, as 2 totes, or 2 cans or 1 bot to the auto zone was still worth the same thing, nothing. . .

Built with a week to spare, host week 0 event, and drive, drive, drive. . .

But the game all came down to consistency, and that is KISS and TORC.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

Thinking on it more, I think most teams that would have been able to reliably grab two would have been picked at most events (even if it didn't make the most sense for that alliance).

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

Of all the events that I followed closely, I think 1305 and 4976 are the only one to really fit the high pick number for a robot that only did cans. Third overall picks at North Bay and Windsor.

Cangrabers for a first pick are very niche like. High seeds don't want them because they can cap their own stacks, even low seeds it's a bit scary as a capper doesn't do too well with no totes to score, but you don't want to solo totes either.

We (4476) also were a "virtually" can only robot, but were selected much lower (due to less reliability seen with our team as a whole) as 6th overall pick and 7th alliance captain respectively. I feel like this would be more typical of alliances looking to go deep.

2848 was a can only robot as well and think they ended in similar positions, lower seed quarterfinalists. They were reasonably reliable at getting 1+ out of the 4.

So not sure a reliable can grab is enough.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I'll throw out team 4050, our third robot on our Chesapeake regional winning alliance as a minimum competitive robot, they were able to make a very simple landfill loader that lifted the edges of the totes, They were able to pretty reliably put up a stacks of five and a stack of four or five due to their drivers being particularly good at using the mechanism.

We somehow were able to pick them as the 24th robot selected as they were more consistent than some pure stackers picked before them.

And for most of elims at Chesapeake, they were working blind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtmTq_SiGnk, our finals matches

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

Would you consider specializing to make sure you get into eliminations by being the first pick of the second round (rather than dead last) fulfilling the "play in eliminations" requirement? Or do you really need to be gone by the end of the first go-through?

For example, in last year's thread, the general consensus pointed toward an inbounder/assist bot, which, in many cases, would not be picked in the first round.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

I can think of a robot class that would qualify. Team 4 is one example; Livewire is another (sorry, forgot the number). There are others.

Drivebase as a fairly standard tank drive. Pickup is a series of hooks for the totes mounted to a chain or belt going up a tower. Maybe a specialized hook for a can goes on the top. If working the chute, a ramp-on-tether gets added.

And of the 3 of that type I can think of off the top of my head, I can remember 2 making elims and I'm not sure about the third.

Re: MCC (Minimum competitive Concept 2015
 

1519 is an example of this, though they had a can claw and can grabbing arms. They were the first seed and winners of all three district events they went to as well as the NE district championship and had an incredibly consistent 3 tote auto.