![]() |
How slow is too slow?
I'm going to pick on Tristan Lall from this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...02&postcount=3
Quote:
In 2002 (Zone Zeal), I was on 340. Our top speed was 6 ft/sec. Over 50% of the time we were the first person to the goals. Only a few times were all the goals taken before we got there (and then most of the time we got them back). In 2004 (last year, First Frenzy), I was on 1405. Our top speed was 8 ft/sec, and when we didn't snag our hook on the goal, we were always the first team hanging. Dr. Joe's old advice to rookie teams was to make your robot go about as fast as you walk. At least for me that is 5-6 ft/sec. His newer advice for top teams is about 10 ft/sec. I don't think that 5ft/sec is anywhere near blindingly slow. Yes it is slow if you want to traverse the 48' field 10 times per match. But for most teams that only need to stay on 1 side, or only move across a few times, 5 ft/sec is quite all right. So, given the games in recent history, what's the slowest top speed you would consider for next year? |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
Again it all comes down to what the game design crew comes up with... |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Lets put it this way, every year there has been at least one very good strategy that did not need a fast robot.
2001, perhaps the year that had the biggest point advantage for being fast, required a lot of finesse balancing the bridge and most teams did not gain much by being ultra fast. 2002, It didn't matter if you got the goals first, only if you had them at the end. 2003, vision was the limiting factor in clearing out all the bins from your opponents area, not speed. 2004, you could very easily herd balls and cap and then hang, without ever traversing the field. If you held the balls internally, you didn't really have to be fast at all. In every single one of the gearbox threads, someone asks "how fast is it?" That means that someone has ben thinking about desired speed. Why not think of it from a strategic viewpoint (note the forum) rather then purely a gearbox viewpoint? |
Re: How slow is too slow?
That comment struck me too. Last year our bot went around 4'/s and that was good for the space we had to work with. I think I would have made it 5-6'/s in hindsight. But blinding slow to me would be 2-3 or less. Also our chassis was somewhat fragile to high speed impact - as Tytus rammed a goal during testing at high speed (around 8'/s) and put a 2" dent in the front of it. So we had to slow her down or we would have to put it on the rack after every match. I think if you want to go faster than 6-7/fps you better build it tough, cuz thats quite an impact you're going to make on the field and other bots.
Although this year we do plan to design for 9'/s ;) |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Our team has always made relatively slow robots.
Our winning robot from last year never went faster than 4ft/s. Yet it still achieved its goals consistently. Does it really matter whether you go 5ft/s or 15ft/s so long as you do what you do really well? |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Ideally, you want something that can go 10+ f/s in high, and something like 4-5 f/s in low. The only example I can think of at the moment is my first year, 2002. My team, 810, designed a wheel/tread system (all credit goes to M. Krass for that), which was, if I remember correctly, 11 f/s in high, and 4 fs/ in low. In high, we could consistently be the first team to the goals, and in low, we could push almost any other team we were up against. Even more important, being rookies, we hadn't quite designed a hook that fit (weight requirements), so the extra speed was crucial in getting around the goals to push. I'd go as far as to say we could've even beaten 71 with that robot, but unfortunately, I never got the chance to go up against them, and that robot has since been destroyed (I wasn't exactly thrilled when I saw that).
However, 2004 my team had another problem. We had a single speed transmission, but the sprocket ratio on the wheels was off, so we had speed, but no power. We then were unable to turn. I'm not an ME, so I'm not sure if this is related to transmissions at all, but remember that you will need a good amount of power to turn any robot, because the carpet is a very sticky surface, so don't make your transmissions based on speed alone. |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
Also 2003, unless your machine had a combination of speed and strength if you watch a lot of the matches as the year went on, a majority of bins stayed on the side of the field they originally fell towards. If those bins fell against you, you better have been fast enough to get as many of them over to the other side as possible I definately think speed was a major factor in those 2 games... |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
In 2004, a high top speed wasn't used frequently, and the obstruction in the centre did limit the usefulness of much faster designs. (Not to say that it was totally useless, but 12+ fps wasn't hardly a priority.) 2003, however, is a better example of the benefits of speed: while you didn't necessarily have to arrive first at any particular position to win, it was often necessary to cross the field quickly to lend aid to your partner, or defend a stack, or gain momentum for a charge up the ramp. A low ratio is great for pushing matches, but with such a large, open field, a robot that could position itself at will was at a clear advantage. In 2002, speed was a factor, but so was pushing. If ever there was a game for Blizzard 5's three-motor, two-speed transmission, geared to 12 fps in high, that was it. It's a toss-up. So, for a dual-ratio design (like the one from the linked post), when you have a low gear of 3 fps, you won't derive any of the benefits of high speed by using a 5 fps top gear, because many robots will still be doing circles around you. In that sense, it is indeed much too slow, and likely a sub-optimal use of your dual-speed capabilities. For a single-speed transmission, a clear decision on speed vs. torque has to be made. In that regard, if faced with a 2004- or 2002-style game, you might want to use something slow and strong; alternatively, with a 2003-, 2001- or 2000-style game, something a little faster might be in order. In essence, I would say that for a robot designed for the 2004 game, 7 fps would have to suffice for a middle-of-the-road single-speed gearbox, while 4 fps and (a rather quick, but still controllable) 12 fps would be best for a dual. For the 2003 game, I would tend to go even higher, with 9 fps for the single, and 5 and 13 fps for the dual. One last item. I'm used to using multi-motor designs which can still push formidably at high speed. (Recall Blizzard 4 in 2003, which had a single-speed, 14 fps design, and could still handily out-push and outmanoeuvre [Canadian spelling :cool: ] most of the opposition.) I realize that many (indeed most) teams don't go that route, and therefore are more used to strategizing with slower robots. |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
|
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
My design (on Woburn's Blizzard 5) incorporated the six biggest motors in the kit, and a two-speed transmission good for 16 fps in high (really!) and 4 fps in low. The 16 was a little too fast (at the edge of controllability), but in the 2003 game, it would have been amazing as-is. We're always ready for the last war, after all. |
Re: How slow is too slow?
have any of you played with or against team 60 in the last few years? and tell me that speed isnt a factor or even important.. or intimidating? haha
particularly 2002(OMG) 2003 and 2004 tho we all do remember 2002 71 BEAST (Still had a very important speed factor involved on those back wheels) and the match they finally had at national semi finals 2002 Maybe speed alone isnt super important always... but if you come up with something dominating once u get to where u wanna go then u want all the speed u can to get there to do it first Osc's 2 Cents |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
The speed helps, but without a good driver, speed means nothing, because you can't control it. |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
2002....dj already made my point 2003, you may not have won, but if you knocked the bins over quickly (quickly....nice pun) you shifted the game to one side dramatically. The rest of the time the other team had to play catch up.... 2004....defensively, speed was a huge factor (who did 71 pick first in atl? oh oh 494 that's right) I think some people underestimate what being the first to the punch can do for you. Personally I am not one that likes having to play catch up.....and i don't believe this stuff from certain ppl that the students can't handle the speed (with enough practice they should be fine)...btw did anyone see 25 in 2003 fly around, and 60/254 in 2004.....? "speed is king" imho.... |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
Once regionals roll around, the teams that practiced are going to do well and get more practice. The teams that didn't finish the bot are going to use the practice rounds to finish it, and maybe even some/most of the qualifying rounds. Those that finished the bot have time in the practice and qualifying rounds to learn to drive the bot. So basically, for the average FIRST team, it takes AT LEAST one regional to become familiar with the robot, some maybe even two. Most teams attend one regional (and perhaps nationals) some attend two (nats, possibly) and hardly any attend 3 regionals (nats as a possibility again). So unless you've had that practice time before build ends, or you have a second bot, or an old one that handles similarly, most teams dont have much practice at all coming into their first, or even second event, which makes having a very fast robot tough on the drivers. |
Re: How slow is too slow?
Quote:
Despite what time you do or don't have I believe that working until the last minute is really quite pointless unless you have practiced what you are going to do on the field....otherwise ppl are just guessing what they think they can/can't do (but that is another debate altogether). Make time to practice for the drivers, otherwise all the engineering and work put into a robot is not wisely used if the product does not preform on the field. Our new driver/drive team got experience and even though we didn't have such a stellar machine he/they drove well enough for us to be a part of the winning alliance in the Peachtree Regional. I don't mean to toot my team's proverbial horn, but that is the team I know best right now. Ok im done. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi