Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

107 was putting three capped and noodled stacks at IRI and with time for unintentional wheelie . In qualifying we put up four stacks of six two capped.
It is great to mentioned with the great teams being considered as top 5 teams.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Definitely deserved and not unnoticed, you guys had a great robot! Thanks for correct info, I knew it was getting better as the season moved along!

-Ronnie

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

We appreciate being noticed in the community in this way, I kept myself from posting Michigan's best because I knew that I couldn't be exactly impartial :D :D but I agree with this analysis.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

3641 absolutly blew me away at IRI, you were on fire. The first alliance was very smart to pick you up. Any talk of best Michigan robots that doesn't involve 3641 is incorrect.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Thanks, I would say it's due to me :D :cool: :D but it's a team effort, thanks for the compliment. :yikes: :D

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Florida now that I've seen most robots in the off-season:
1. 179
2. 2383
3. 233
4. 1592
5. 744

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

They were also one of the top 5 Curie robots, ending competition ranked 3rd

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

I remember glancing at the standings while walking through the pits several times and it seemed like they were leading the pack for quite some time. Great robot and great team.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Saw you guys practicing and competing at MSC and you were going a great job there too.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Tell that to all the landfill teams at worlds and IRI that were picked far before robots that could make more stacks from the feeder.
In general, 2-3 landfill stacks was more valuable than 3 feeder stacks, because there were significantly more robots capable of making 2-3 feeder stacks.
In the same vein, 3 stacks from the landfill was a much more difficult feat to accomplish (especially with limited visibility from stacks being placed and noodle throwing), so difficult that even your IRI championship alliance captains rarely cleared the landfill during eliminations.

Anyway, they're all very, very good teams. 126 points from the feeder vs. 84 from the landfill is extreme parity, and other attributes (can grabbers, capping ability, ability to use rightside-up and step can for stacks) would also factor in. There were a ton of good teams, though, and I think in any given match, many of them could outscore each other.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Careful, I don't think Picking order = robot skill in most cases. Sometimes (2009), maybe, but especially with the necessity of certain robot functions (canburglars, landfill/feeder station) in Recycle Rush sometimes the better robot would be passed up by a team since they aren't compatible. A better way to rate robots IMO would be by qualifying rank at events. This shows a more accurate rank of robot ability.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

FRC ranking systems are generally regarded as the least accurate rank of robot ability. 2015 is the exception rather than the rule... unless you happen to have had the great fortune to have been paired with an awful lot of good teams, when it's still highly inaccurate. I'd use OPR first, and I am not a fan of OPR in general. I'll save the gory details for "if you're still interested" on this one.



To add another item to Kevin's list: A landfill robot can, in a pinch, load from the feeder station (some caveats apply about totes landing properly, or using a long enough ramp). A feeder robot cannot load from the landfill if there's some sort of problem with the feeder station, in general. (I think 1197 could have made the attempt, but we never ran out of feeder station totes.)

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

When talking about MN powerhouses this year, many people miss 2883 FRED. They were a powerhouse up at Lake superior and they were a powerhouse that captained our Finalist alliance at the MN state championship this year.

FRED's improvements for state included adding a tethered ramp for state. With the tethered ramp, it allowed them to be capable of creating 2 capped/noodled 6 stacks. Unfortunately, there seems to be no video evidence of this(for some reason only a couple matches of the MN state championship were recorded). They also had a can grabber that they could take out of needed.

Here are some more robots that deserve to be mentioned/considered when talking about the top 5-10 for MN: 1816 and 4778.

1816 was picked 5th overall in curie, which is very impressive, and their can burgulars were always consistent. 4778 also made some improvements before MN state, they were a tote bot that put 15+ totes on the scoring platform almost every match at state.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

There were a ton of co-op specialists that found their way into the top 8 this year(or at least at MN regionals). Co-op inflated ranks this year, and put some teams in the top 8 that shouldn't of been there this year.

I understand that co-op specialists have other roles they can adapt to during eliminations as well, that may possibly make them an ideal teammate, but teams who do nothing but co-op during an entire regional, and end up in the top 8 usually end up unprepared to adapt to other roles during eliminations, which makes them an undesirable partner for eliminations.

Co-op sort of made this year's ranking system a little unreliable for some cases.

Re: Top 5 robots in each state
 

Disregarding my team due to my own internal bias. I would put 233 above 2383 I would actually put 1592 above them as well.

I would go:
233
1592
2383
744/1523 depending on how you are judging.

233 was consistently making atleast 2 stacks so was 1592. 2383 when last I saw them was limited to 2 stacks max a match.