Wedge bot DQ
 

How about some opinions?

We were told that we could not move forward towards another bot with our front (wedge) or face disqualification if the other robot fell over. (Halfway through qualifying). An opponent went over while we were fighting for the top and we were DQed.

We had to use other strategies less effective for pushing and hill fighting, hurting our performance.

We were subsequently flipped multiple times by other bots who continued pushing after it was apparent we were going over. No DQ was issued to them. (we were able to self right and continue)

We are now redesigning our front area for the nats. (no more wedge)

Sound like a good call? Did we miss something in the rules? Any other wedge bots get this ruling?

Looking forward to your opinions . . .

Team 353
Semi finalist, 2003 LI regional

Well, I am very sorry to hear that. The wedge idea is great and you shouldnt scrap it. If you have been to both the regionals that my team has (302) then you know how great the wedge idea is. Our front wedge and back wedges lie low to the ground and the front can lift up. We were told in the buckeye that it would lead to DQing if we used it, but we sat and watched while other teams flipped top heavy robots and no DQs ever. During the GLR we sucessfully pushed many people off with our robot and im sure people will remember us for nationals. Sorry to hear that you scraping it.

We tipped a TON of robots at the Phoenix, AZ regional. We never once got a penalty or DQ (we didn't get any awards either:( ) Our robot, however, does not have a wedge. Our CG is so low, and most everyone else's is so high, and we hit so hard that tipping is possible even without a wedge. But, because our robot was not designed to tip other robots, it is allowed. Fair, no. Awesome, oh yeah!:cool:

Fear 696...

Not very fair.

Btw, did you pass inspection with the light barely sticking out as it does in that pic you attached? :/

I can't speak for the referees or field manager, but. . .

your wedge does a good job at breaking traction. Other robots drive up onto it and significantly reduce their own tractive effort.

This, in an of itself, seems like it should be good enough. If a robot has it's traction reduced by this method, you'd win a pushing match. If they continue to have traction, they'll flip themselves (as 467 did.)

If a robot has climbed atop your wedge, moving forward into them offers no additional advantage, save for the possibility of tipping them or otherwise making them immobile. Both of those actions are illegal.

If they tip themselves by driving up your wedge, it'd be okay, as best as I can see. If you facilitate or otherwise aid their tipping by moving forward, you're at fault and deserve a DQ.

At the BAE regional, you migt have run into the robot that I put alot of effort into. I call it the Baha Basher, after the engineer who helped design it. We were focusing on being a box slammer, if they were in the worng place, out they went. But then the wedge was added, ::eary music:: and we had to be smart with it. You have to have strategy, and there is a well known fact that this isn't Battlebots, so going around flipping people over is NOT a good thing. dont you be the one who makes the action, let the other person tip themselves. be dead right in front of where they are driving, if u want the hill, be in front of them, when they ride up u, and tip, its their own fault. Play it safe, or otherwise the refs will hate u, trust me. Be on the refs good side. Defense, not offense.

Exactly.

If a robot, under thier own power, drives onto you...and flips, it is thier fault.

If you ram other teams, get underneath them, and flip them - you just built a Battlebot - which is illegal.

Think about it: you are designed to intentionally disable other robots, which is a direct violation of the rules.

I don not believe that you need to remove the wedge in order to comply with the judges' ruling. all it needs is a little redesigning

You will get DQ'd if you use it to flip someone. However, it was obvious that (from watching the SBPLI regional) that your wedge works primarily to lift an opponent up so that they are easier to move. All you have to do is make sure that the opponent doesn't flip over when you push them. Its not the design or its intention (easily shoving other robots) that is illegal, its the fact that they flip over.

Time for some wild speculation on my part.

Robots will flip over not only because of the wedge, but because they will ride complete up and over another bot. All you would need to do is put a stop of some kind ensuring that an opponent rides up the ramp portion of your robot and then stops.

Consider this - take a couple pieces of square aluminum and attach them to the top of the robot. You would probably want to position them at such an angle so that they are perpendicular to the wedge, but are far enough beyond the top of the wedge that they do not interfere with the flip-up acrtion of the wedge
With this, you could still pick an opponent's front wheels off of the ground, but they would hit and snag on the stop before actually flipping over.

Sorry if I'm blabbing incoherently, but having seen your robot in action (and I must agree that it flips over opponents a little to much) I think its a simple but ingenious design and I wouldn't want you to have to scrap it.

Look at the Stang. They have a wedge, they are smart about using it, so they dont have any problems. In the one match that was linked to on CD, 111 was blocking their HP stack with 226 going after it. 226 drove up onto wildstang, and was on the verge of tipping. had 111 driven forward, 226 would of tipped, but they didnt, acheiving GP and playing by the rules, while still using their wedge to their advantage.

Cory

The wedge seems to be a popular tool in this years toolbox. Having one is not against the rules but how you use it does. 179 and 229 both have wedge-esk rampdoms and neither of them have run into trouble because they don't use them agressively.

If you drive toward someone your wedge is designed to push them up and over. However if they drive toward you your wedge is designed to help you stay in place. The diffirence is subtle but key in this situation.

Look at it like this. The judges made the ruling because you tried to flip IE damage/disable another bot. Had a bot taken its arm and beat a bot into submission it would be disabled for the same reason. The arm doesn't have to be removed it just can't be used to do that.

This is one of those issues that depends completely on the intentions behind the act.

During UCF, we ended up flipping two robots unintentionally. Both times, we were starting to head down the ramp right as they were cresting it, meaning the front end of their robot was dangling in the air right where we were moving towards at full speed. In neither case was the flipping intentional, and both times we went to the teams afterwards and apologized and asked if they took any damage and if there was anything we could do to help. This kind of flipping, in my opinion, is not illegal.

On the other hand, if you consistently use a wedge to get under a robot and subsequently flip them, it establishes a pattern and makes the judges think it was a design feature. This is clearly illegal, not to mention completely against the spirit of FIRST.

From what I've read here, it sounds like your robot falls in the first category and doesn't violate any rules. Just be careful, and make a point of backing off if it looks like your opponent is about to tip.

We have a wedge on our bot & didn't run into any trouble with the refs. We accidentally flipped a bot too. We were both headed for the wall at the same time & couldn't see each other. By the time we could, it was either back up & let the other bot take all the bins or just go for it. We went for it. They went over but we didn't have any problems with refs or the other team for that matter. We went & offered them spare parts, made peace & such.

Thank you for noticing. We could have very easily tipped 226 in that situation; but that is never our intention. We are aware that our design could cause tall robots to tip. So we try not to push too far on tall robots. Luckily, no one tipped while trying to ram us and they just wound up driving on top of us.

Our KOTH design intent was to prevent robots from ramming us off the HDPE (rather than use suction cups) while we tried to hold our position on the top of the hill and keep other robots off. Other teams also realized that a wedge is the easiest way to accomplish this.

We have had a movable wedge design since 2001.

We finally tipped a robot over this year (for the first time). It was a very top heavy robot that we pushed over the lip of the hill. We kept moving forward and they fell over.

It was not our intent to tip them. I thought that the refs could have issued a DQ or not. They could have warned us. However, our behavior was deemed acceptable under the circumstances.

However, for the most part, our drivers are both trained and instructed in -not- tipping other vehicles. The fact that we have gone three years (four regionals, two nationals) and tipped a robot once, is a testimony to the concept that wedges can be used effectively without being a tipping device.

We actually use the wedge as a movable end-effector. It allows us to adjust the height of our pushing force. It also makes us difficult to push, since pushing robots ride up on the wedge. When we want to push a bot, we typically raise the wedge so that we avoid picking up or tipping.

As to your problem with DQ and the warnings, I would have to watch the match. Perhaps the refs saw something in your driving which they interpreted as deliberate action. However, there are enough wedge bots out there this year that clearly this is an acceptable device.

I saw the match you at the Long Island regional where 353 was dq'd. I think there was a little more to it than just tipping the other robot. First, when the robot fell its light was extending beyond the role cage on it and got smashed. The judges probably saw the damage and immediatley thought of of battle bots as i'm sure many of us in the stands did. Second, your wedge was movable. You could have lifted it and pushed them with the blunt side which probably wouldn't have tipped them. If you had at least attempted this and shown that it wasn't working i dont think the refs would have had as much of a problem with you hitting them with the wedge to knock them off. Third, you went straight at them. There was room to try and get up next to them and then ram them off. But instead you hit them dead on wedge down. That made the flipping look intentional and the damage of course made it serious.
You also got a bit unlucky with your oponent. The bot you were up against (dont remember the number) had a curve underneath the front of there bot, where the very front was a bit higher and then sloped down to the base. This practically invited a wedge, or even a short robot, to get underneath and flip them. Second There weight was closer to there back set of wheels and that was also where the extra height was. Pushing there cg towards and above the back wheels. A front hit could quite easily flip them just for that.
All in all i'm I believe the judges made the right call. Your drive system was more than enough to shove through the opponent without having the wedge down and risking the flip.