Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

1114 was neither first seed nor an alliance captain on Curie. that honor was 148's. they were, however the second ranked team and first pick.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Nice set of lists.
How about NE top 5 or top 10 as a whole? I'll think about that one, but it'll sure be tough. So many to choose from! Especially as my memory is already fading from this season.

So far, I can at least provide the top 1 from New England :P
#1 - 195

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

I was on was on drive team and didn't watch most of the matches from IRI... Could anyone give an unbiased ranking of Minnesota???

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

If your asking rankings based on the teams from MN that went to IRI(based on their performances on IRI), it would be

1. 2502
2. 3130/2512(I'm not sure who would top the other)

I don't know how well these rankings actually ranks these teams, because 3130 and 2512 got unlucky, due to their schedule. They had to play roles in recycle rush that they weren't suited to strategically(such as 3130 using the ramp to get totes from the HP station or 2512 creating stacks from the landfill). Unfortunately, both 2512 and 3130 couldn't show off their max capabilities during qualification rounds.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

That's dissappointing because both of those teams are good teams when they play in the position that they normally did at other competitions

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

I was surprised that 3130 didn't get picked. But I think part of it came down to a number of other teams showing up with a ton of landfill improvement done (179, 503, 5254, etc.), and them not having any really useful autonomous modes (because their two-can grabber was unusable due to IRI rules).

2502 was just consistent all day from that feeder station, and I think 2512 would have been similar if they had the schedule 2502 did. I remember 2512 doing co-op and landfill a ton of times, which was unfortunate for showing off capabilities.

Minnesota was pretty good all around this year, despite a few traditional powerhouses underperforming.

Minnesota:
1) 3130
2) 2502
3) 2512
4) 2169
5) 2526
(2052/5172 could all feasibly fill that #4 and #5 slot as well)

All the top Minnesota teams were fairly closely matched this year, so really that's just a top 5-7.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

1319 got my #4 spot because of stability, in short, they weren't. Their robot functionality was great, as usual, but when they tried to lift 6 stacks they would tip, at least at Peachtree, this instability caused them to drop stacks. From what I understand they had added intake wheels that were not on at GSC, which affected their balance. Also, they broke during eliminations at Peachtree and that cost them.

283 was the most stable and innovative one-sided lift I saw. Their lift was stable enough to hold a can on top of the top tote with out supporting the can at all. They earned the innovation in design award presented to them at Peachtree. If they had gone to St. Louis they would have been picked, may have been picking and with all that space on the back of their bot, if they didn't add can robbers, they probably would have been cheesecaked. Also, not to be picky but, according to some of our mentors, they did compete the first year with 281 and just this past year, (off season 2014), restarted, this is what I meant by dormant.

4451 another extremely good bot, but I did see them drop a stack, this is the only reason they are below 283 on my list, who I NEVER saw drop a stack. Not many teams can say that I don't think. Also, based on where teams finished the season, 343 leads the pack with a Finalist division trophy.

4901, that was the bot with the "elephant ears" for grabbing cans right? While they didn't work as well as they had hoped they were interesting.

Overall this was a good year for South Carolina and I look forward to an even better year next year. Who knows, maybe we can get a SC team onto Einstein next year.

PS: SCRIW is going to be fun! With so many robots in the area that only needed one or two things to make them great, it is going to be a very competitive field.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Harsh... we dropped a 6 stack in one practice match and now our entire robot is unstable. We did 5s with cans and noodles fast by utilizing our intakes and ramp. Fast enough and consistent enough to take the number one seed without tipping over again. While we did break in elims it was fixed in between matches. You must be referring to us dropping a stack in the last match. Our drivers were going faster than usual to make up for the fact that our partner 283 broke the arm they used to cap their stacks. We knew we had to move faster to close the point gap to advance and it didn't work.

Based on individual robot performance and not what they did as part of an alliance I believe Billfred has the rankings right.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

having scouted 1319 on curie, I can definitely confirm that they did not have stack tipping issues (as if a member of the team pointing it out isn't enough :P)

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Unfortunately at IRI we got the short end of the stick for some of our matches and ended up being responsible for the landfill. This obviously isn't our strong suit for recycle rush, and we weren't able to put up our usual points. But we still had a blast competing for our first time at IRI.

When we did have a feeder station spot it just seemed like small/weird things would happen. In our last match for the competition we had a few times where packet drop was tremendous, not letting us do auto, co-op, or efficiently stack from the feeder.

Still looking forward to the next time the team is able to attend IRI again!

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

I agree with the top two....but 3 and 4 are questionable. I see it more as this as long as we are looking at this from a season over view standpoint. The top two were just good throughout, 314 had struggles but was fairly consistent with 3 stacks for a large part of the season...you can't deny 3 wins as number 1 seed. 33 was seen at its best doing 3 stacks, it seemed to be more of a 20 point auto and then 2. The 5th bots are hard, we had 68 doing 3 at its best plus starting to throw out more totes but had some consistency issues when their ramp was not perfectly aligned. 3641 started along the same lines with picking up in stack count as the season went on. 107 was for sure a dark horse for many people. Their 20pt auto and 2 stacks was pretty killer. If I recall correctly they started their 3rd often? Maybe I am thinking wrong on that one, someone correct me if so. I don't think that any of these teams are bad and are better than a majority of FRC.

1-1023
2-548
3-314
4-33
5-68/3641/107

-Ronnie

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Michigan had a ton of absolutely killer machines.
67 was two feeder stacks, a tote stack auto, and some of the fastest can grabbers. 1918 and 2137 were similarly good, but without the tote stack auto. 2054 was killer early on, and their autonomous routine was insane. 70 and 494 were unique machines that could pull two stacks from anywhere and hit a tote stack auto. 217 and 1718 were interesting niche picks with good can grabbers that each made division finals. 85 at their best was making three capped stacks of 5 in Carson qualifications, and they also had a one can grab. 27 had a crazy year, making it to both MSC and Galileo finals. 2959 and 4967 were two other great landfill machines from Michigan, who generally made about 2 stacks in a match. You also can't forget 503, who had some of the other fastest can grabbers out there.

I think the only two machines you could for-sure put in the MI top 5 are 1023 and 548. 3rd has to be 33, because they were byfar the best landfill robot in Michigan, and one of the best in the world, as well as the 4th overall pick at IRI.
Next could be any of 27/67/68/70/107/314/503/1918/2054/2137/2959/3641/4967 depending on what attributes you value more and what competitions you look at.

By performance at worlds:
27- Division Finalist
67- Division Finalist
68- Division Quarterfinalist
70- Division Semifinalist
107- Division Quarterfinalist
314- Division Semifinalist
503- Division Semifinalist
1918- Division Semifinalist
2054- Division Quarterfinalist
2137- Division Finalist
2959- Division Quarterfinalist
3641- Division Quarterfinalist
4967- Division Quarterfinalist

Basically beyond your top 3 teams, there's extreme parity among the rest of Michigan's elite.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

You do not receive any extra points for using the landfill that I am aware of? so please explain how 33 can be better than teams that could stack more from human player station just because they were the best Michigan LF bot(which I am not arguing)? Yes they had a 20pt auto, but without noodling a majority of their stacks(they had alliance partner noodle one at champs and they did the first one) I don't see the same and we can agree to disagree. Now 67 as a two stack machine...I don't think it happened as much as the season wen't on but yes they had fast grabbers. This is all opinion and we can go on for days going on about it. I just would not go as far as "extreme parity" when comparing a team that does 126 points versus a team that does 84/104 with auto.

-Ronnie

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

I took a look at the FIM District Rankings:

1) 1023 384
2) 548 380
3) 2197 307.5
4) 33 287.5
5) 68 286.5

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

There were many more effective HP stackers than landfill stackers, so running out of HP totes is a real issue. A good landfill stacker mitigates that issue, and so is valued more in my eyes, at least.
If you have 2 3-stack HP stackers on your alliance, you will run out of totes. And the third robot becomes useless (apart from grabbing/flipping cans) if they can't landfill.