Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Fork Lift Robot (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3512)

tinyfarnsworth 07-04-2002 19:31

Fork Lift Robot
 
Our team this year included a forklift used to lift up other robots and at this point in the season we have pretty much pefected it. all the robots that brag about there great "traction" and brage if there drive sytem is of the ground and that was the idea behind it. please let me know what you think of it. Was this a good idea?
would you pick us as a aliance ?

Ben Mitchell 07-04-2002 19:43

I would not pick you as an alliance because your robot, rather than seeking an elegant solution to score points, instead attacks other robots, and uses them as other teasm would use goals.


Your strategy could damage another team's robots beyond repair, and I believe it is not in the spirit of the FIRST events.

The idea is to make a great and elegant solution to mechanical problems, not to play battlebots.

You have wrong game.

Sorry, but that's how i feel, and since you asked...

tinyfarnsworth 07-04-2002 19:50

you speak such harsh words. although you are right that the idea is to find inovative solutions our ideas as a ROOKIE TEAM that could not spend more that 400$ on our robot made simple and effective use of our robot.

David Kelly 07-04-2002 19:51

i think that goes against "Gratious Professionalism." if you're interrested in destroying other robots, go check out robot wars or battle bots. we don't play that stuff in FIRST

tinyfarnsworth 07-04-2002 19:55

i asure you our intention was in no way meant as harm. we were not look for battle bots. we like every other team have or weekness's and used our forks for distruction would be wrong and is not used in that manner.

more robots have been tipped over and damage by other teams than the # of robots we even picked up. we dont inflict any more dammage that any other robot our there

David Kelly 07-04-2002 20:00

i didn't intend for my post to sound harmful. i was just saying that if you intending to go out there and purposely damage robots, that would be wrong.

sorry for any misunderstanding...:cool:

tinyfarnsworth 07-04-2002 20:04

no problem. any one else want to express any streanght or weekness's we have please reply

cyanutopia 07-04-2002 21:21

I don't see it as going against "gracious professionalism", as long as your objectives are only to temporarily disable, not PERMANENTLY disable, the robots of other teams. I think, however, that unless you've truly perfected the forklift operation and know your opposition well enough, you run a greater risk of heavily damaging an opponent robot, so much so that it may be deemed as malicious play.
And as for picking your team for an alliance partner, it would really depend on what other robots get picked---if the robots that get picked are all quick and most have tethers, then I probably wouldn't pick your team. Teams like #16 (baxter bomb squad) are so quick you probably couldn't lift 'em up even if you had all the practice in the world, and those with tethers would still score 10 points regardless of having a foot (or wheel) on the ground.

Jnadke 07-04-2002 21:40

Quote:

Originally posted by David Kelly
i think that goes against "Gratious Professionalism." if you're interrested in destroying other robots, go check out robot wars or battle bots. we don't play that stuff in FIRST
BEFORE you all jump on the flaming bandwagon, you should read the rule book.

They purposely added the lifting clause because they wanted a team to do it. As long as you "Handle with care," they'll let you do it. If you drop the robot, you get disqualified.

So, if the team that gets lifted, gets damaged, then they get compensated. DQ gives that team 3 times their own points...

XRaVeNX 07-04-2002 22:25

Our team (610) robot also has a mechanism for doing something similar. It is a wedge. Basically, we slide the wedge under another robot and it lifts two of the wheels up. There are little claws on the wedge that come up and hook onto the opposing robot's structure so that they can't drive off the wedge unless we retract the claws. It works and we haven't had an incident where we damanged another robot with the wedge yet. But we were afraid to use it after we got a warning cuz our wedge got under a goal. So, in the finals of the Canadian Regional, we tied up the wedge so it wouldn't come down. The added weight adds to our traction while reducing traction of the wedged robot.

Our intent wasn't to destroy or damage a robot. In fact, our mechanism for grabbing the goals was the one to cause more damage. Sorry to that team, if you are reading this btw...

I'm sorta angry that FIRST left this so open. Cuz some teams don't even think of this strategy because they think it is illegal.... and they get angry when they see other robots using it. I completely understand. That's why we don't use our wedge much. And we probably won't use it much at the Championship too....

tinyfarnsworth 07-04-2002 22:42

we have not had a problem yet the judge say it is perfectly legal and liked the idea they only tell us to make sure if they are up to be carfull not to spear a robot and damage them otherwise its fine. we dont have a problem with the goal because they just stay down and when there done anything can run over them with no problem we just dont life them when under a goal

Joel Glidden 07-04-2002 23:22

I'm new here. I just found this great community. I'm a Systems Engineering Junior participating in my first ever FIRST competition (My team's third year). I came here planning to lurk, but this thread caught my attention. I just have to throw in my 2 cents...

IMHO, forklifting other robots (safely) IS a very elegant solution to score points. There are three point scoring resources on the field; goals, balls, and the robots themselves. The great majority of teams have completely ignored the 40 point differential and host of added strategical benefits that come along with forklifting opponent robots.

I don't think this tactic comes anywhere near violating 'gracious professionalism' or the spirit of FIRST if done in a non-damaging manner. I think that perhaps some react to it with hostility because they fear and envy such a potentialy powerful tactic.

I can't wait to see some good lifter bots in action at Nats. Cheers!

-Joel

Mark Hamilton 07-04-2002 23:36

picking up and moving other robots is a fair and excellent stategy. It is completely within the rules. The only problem with it is, what happens when you make a mistake, and severly damage another teams robot? I thought about this a little but dismissed the idea. I for one am not willing to take risks with other peoples robots. If your robot safely and effectively picks up and moves other robots, I congratulate you. I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for damage caused by your robot, and realize what it might mean to other teams.

Joel Glidden 07-04-2002 23:44

Well....

We were all warned that full speed robot collisions would be allowed, would be common, and should be a serious design consideration for this year's competition. I think there is a fine line between damage caused due to malicious acts and damage caused due to lack of sufficient robustness in design by the 'victim'.

Note: I'm envisioning potential damage caused by running the forks under the robot to be lifted; not damage caused by dropping a robot.

-Joel

George1902 08-04-2002 11:49

Disclaimer: this post in no way reflects the opinions of SPAM as a whole or any other of it's members

that being said, if i personally had a robot that i spent 6 weeks creating and you make an offensive maneuver towards my robot (i.e. not trying to block me from a goal or from balls, rather trying to score using my bot) don't be surprised if i make a few offensive maneuvers in response.

in short: you had better disable me on the first try, cause you won't get a second try after your forks are laying on the ground....

just my angry 2 cents

George

Don 08-04-2002 15:55

I'm writing this, because our team's traction buster does something similar to this forklift. We don't use ours recklessly whenever we just want to move a robot. We generally only use it to manipulate a robot attached to a goal. It's simply an effective way to manipulate a robot. And is it really so terrible? We haven't hurt anyone using it so far. To me it seems like it would cause less dents and burnt motors than just bashing head on with another robot.
I'm interested in hearing the opinions of other teams on these mechanims. Especially the teams that don't like them. I'm interested in hearing why.

Ben Mitchell 08-04-2002 16:59

Wow, I’m going to make some new enemies with this post, which is fine by me, I need some new ones anyway. Here it goes, brace thyselves:


#1: XRaVeNX

Claws that grab opposing robot's structure: What if these claws, in the finals, hit a pneumatics line, basically crippling the other alliance? Non intentional, of course, but in effect taking away their chances, if a key robot was the one you disabled. Don’t give me the "there shouldn’t be a weakest link" story, either. You are taking a major risk, and an error could take out the opposing team, permanently.

#2 tinyfarnsworth (again!)

QUOTE BY tinyfarnsworth: “our ideas as a ROOKIE TEAM that could not spend more that 400$ on our robot made simple and effective use of our robot.” END QUOTE

Would'nt a hook to grab a claw be MUCH easier? You guys went OUT OF YOUR WAY to use other robots as game pieces, which I feel is completely against the spirit of FIRST. The chances of your team, ANY team that lifts other robots to damage other robots is far greater than normal play. Gambling with other people's time, money, and resources like that is irresponsible, you could put a team out of a competition, and THEIR 6 weeks would be meaningless, in terms of recognition at the competition. FIRST was not meant to be like Battlebots, but with folks like you, we’ll have Carmen Electra at the Nat’s’ in not time, thanks a lot.

#3 Jnadke (becoming like the chapter names of Catch-22, here)

QUOTED FROM Jnadke: “They purposely added the lifting clause because they wanted a team to do it. As long as you "Handle with care," they'll let you do it. If you drop the robot, you get disqualified. “

So, if the team that gets lifted gets damaged, then they get compensated. DQ gives that team 3 times their own points...” UNQUOTE

Number 1, who are they, and WHY do they WANT you to do this? And why have'nt I met these mysterious people that think risking another teams robot, that you didnt build, to be encouraged and praised? ANSWER THAT?? or can you...?

Number 2, sure, you get DQ’ed, and if the opposing alliances robot is permanently out of the competition, these points are going to do them real good…as they sit in the bleachers. The risk is their, and by gambling, you jeopardize those you play with in an irresponsible manner.


QUOTED FROM Joel Glidden

”IMHO, forklifting other robots (safely) IS a very elegant solution to score points. There are three point scoring resources on the field; goals, balls, and the robots themselves. The great majority of teams have completely ignored the 40 point differential and host of added strategical benefits that come along with forklifting opponent robots.

I don't think this tactic comes anywhere near violating 'gracious professionalism' or the spirit of FIRST if done in a non-damaging manner. I think that perhaps some react to it with hostility because they fear and envy such a potentialy powerful tactic.”


#4 That’s wonderful, disabling other robots is a very elegant solution, that’s what first is all about. The board of director would never be happier seeing 2 robots lifting up the other 2 and running into their endzone. As for strategic benefits, of course, by taking out ½ the opposing team, you’ll get major benefits. (and I didn’t even have to whip out my calculator for that one, har har har!)


I think George180’s got the idea: This sort of thing IS frowned upon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if relations between fork lifting teams, and other teams suffer.

This all reminds me about 2 years ago, when 303 (decent machine) bashed Chief Delphi (awesome machine) at the J&J Mid Atlantic. I wasn’t on the team at the time, but Delphi’s never been back. Too bad, their robot’s are always awesome. Perhaps someone who was there can tell you more. I only watched a video of it, and I cringed, I BECAME ASHAMED OF MY 303 SHIRT, after watching that video.

If your going to play FIRST the way it was meant to be played, good, we want you here. If you’re going to turn it into Battlebots, play that instead. Using other team’s robots I find to be immoral to the spirit of FIRST, and distasteful as a 2nd year FIRSTer. Play the game nicely, get some balls (pun intended) grab some goals, and give the audience a show. I would take no pride in a robot that wins by disabling others. It is in no way, shape, or form, and elegant solution.

For this post, I will say I am intentionally discouraging this sort of behavior. I think Joe Johnson said that this was perhaps the “End of Elegance” in FIRST. With such support for this loophole of gracious professionalism, I now 100% agree with him. Hopefully the acidic nature of this post won’t send anyone over the edge. (ouch, it burns!)

(Someone out there back me up on this one. After this post, I’m going to need it)

--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>>

Jnadke 08-04-2002 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>>

I apolligize for being ambiguous...

I meant to say that FIRST added the new rule. I'm sure they wanted to see someone do it. From what I heard, the referees have been pretty nitpicky with the lifting robots. They've kept a close eye on how stable they are with the other bot...

To say this issue isn't relevant, however, would be wrong. Yes, this must be addressed for next year...

For the most part, you don't have to lift the robot far off the ground to break traction. If you're a tall ball bot then there would be some worry, but I'm sure the referees would be more than happy to make the call to deny the lifting, if they see that problems may arise.

bigqueue 08-04-2002 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by George180
Disclaimer: this post in no way reflects the opinions of SPAM as a whole or any other of it's members

that being said, if i personally had a robot that i spent 6 weeks creating and you make an offensive maneuver towards my robot (i.e. not trying to block me from a goal or from balls, rather trying to score using my bot) don't be surprised if i make a few offensive maneuvers in response.

in short: you had better disable me on the first try, cause you won't get a second try after your forks are laying on the ground....

just my angry 2 cents

George


Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that.

I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)

Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated.

Joel Glidden 08-04-2002 17:47

Please...

Re-read this thread and then compare it with the one linked below.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&threadid=2840

It appears to me that there is a bit of a double standard going on here. The consensus seems to feel that violent collisions on the horizontal are perfectly kosher. But for some reason, the carefully designed and implemented lifting of a robot is taboo. Bogus!

Like I said earlier, all this hostility seems to be the product of fear and envy. Simply putting your robot on the field presents a risk to the other teams' bots. Virtually every aspect of the game puts robots at risk. We are expected to treat each other with respect and professionalism, but that doesn't mean we have to say,

"Pardon me. Were you trying to put those balls in this goal? Oh here, let me help you. Good show! I'll go back to my corner and lose now. Ta-ta."

A robot lifting strategy is not ungracious. It's powerful. Next I suppose we'll hear that 3-goal grabber / lifter / dragger bots are ungracious.

-Joel

Dave Hurt 08-04-2002 18:14

Darn Joel, you beat me to it :-)

What's the difference between lifting a robot and setting him on the other side of the field, and ramming a robot to push him across the field? It the 4 years I've been participating/watching this competition, there has been plenty of carnage due to ramming and pulling. I drove for the 2 years when I was a member of a FIRST team, and just ask Ken Patton about our races to get one of the black balls in 2000 :-) We both came out pretty beat up, and we lost in the semi's to them because I snapped an axle when we hit them/the wall. My point is, lifting a robot is alot less violent then ramming and beating on a robot to move it. So how is something that is less violent "not in the spirit of FIRST?" IMO, if you can't keep yourself from being picked up, you shouldn't complain. Someone came up with an effective idea, and if they use it to beat you, good for them!


That brings me to another rant. Please don't take this the wrong way, and if you don't like it, well, take it out on me or something :-)

I can't stand how there are some people that go off about how this and that are not in "the spirit of first." What really is the spirit of first? Is it going out and beating the pants off your opponet? Making the best animation? Having a bot that only students built? I think the only thing that really matters in this entire competition is how much the student learns. I think there have been several people/teams that have forgotten this. I'm not throwing names or pointing fingers, or saying every team out there is corrupt. I think that some people have just been too caught up with beating everyone else out on the field. Ok, I'm going to shut up now....

Ben Mitchell 08-04-2002 18:16

You're new at FIRST, are'nt you?

Last year was 100% cooperation, this year is much more competitive. You CANNOT deny that lifting a robot presents a clear danger to that robot, no matter how well constructed it is.

Your...line about a team asking permission was silly, no team would do that, and it has nothing to do with the task at hand. A robot designed to lift other presents a risk to teams that should'nt need to be dealt with, lest FIRST become battlebots.

getting 3 goals is difficult, and does not present an immediate danger to the condition of other robots. That is good, we like good, elegant solutions for problems. Pushing other robots without harming them is fine, otherwise the game would be very boring, with robots avoiding each other.

Picking up robots requires teams to, in effect, attack other robots.

Shoving other robots is ok, as long as it is not of mal intent, but lifting requires much more effort, and robot must be PURPOSELY designed to to that. To put 6 weeks of effort to disable other robots is, in my opinion, against the spirit of the competition.

As for putting your robots on the field representing a risk to other teams, that's ridiculous, I’m sorry, but i keep falling out my chair laughing. You try and justify lifting other robots with a forklift by saying their presence presents a danger?

QUOTE: Virtually every aspect of the game puts robots at risk. UNQUOTE

Ok...I'm putting balls in goal A, now I'm bringing the goal across the field... I'm not seeing the danger, unless of course you mean winning by fair play, in which case I'm quite a threat to society.

Come on, how do you justify disabling other robots with a cohesive argument? I'm not sure you can, without taking major liberties with the ideals of FIRST. What lifters do is turn FIRST into Battlebots, and that is a true shame.

Brett 08-04-2002 18:20

Preach it Dave, lol. =)

Joe Johnson 08-04-2002 22:20

Lifting a robot has been one of the things that FIRST has been very consistant about.

It is legal and it is allowed. I think they said something about not lifting too high and perhaps there were one or two other qualifiers, but basically it is and has been legal.

I don't expect that you will be too popular with the team you lift if you damage them but I don't think they will have a leg to stand on when to say it is illegal.

If you ended up damaging most robots you lifted I suppose the refs may start looking at you more closely but other than that I think you'd be okay.

Joe J.

P.S. Team 862 got their forks under us in a practice round in Grand Rapids and dragged us a bit. No harm, no foul... ...no big deal.

Mike Rush 08-04-2002 23:27

If your machine compliments ours and we are in the same region at the natonals and you have the ability to pick up another machine attached to goals and in effect create more points for our alliance then yes, I would pick you. Good Luck at Nationals and I'll be watching for the fork lift.....

Wetzel 09-04-2002 00:24

At the beginning of the build period while we where doing designs, a few students mockup-ed a PLATFORM to go under another robot. The basic idea was to go between the wheels/treads and then lift, thereby disabling motion on their part.

Ben: I do deny that lifting a robot presents a clear danger to that robot.

Thats where the engineering challenge comes in. It would be easy to stab the other bot with a pitchfork and lift. But that would damage them.
So how do you go about doing it without dammage? Matt and his group decided to go after what they felt would be the least common way to score points.
It got shot down for the day we had the meeting to decide on a desing, the 3second pin rule was released on the yahoo boards. We interpreted lifting them as pinning them and decided to persure other things.

Anyways, if it dosn't damage, go for it. Everything has the potential for damage. 130lbs moving at 12fps, just a bit of energy available for transfer. Pulliong a goal in a tug-o-war, possiblity for burnt out motors. Everything isn't safe all the time. Until it breaks someting, I say good job on a unique bot.

George1902 09-04-2002 01:45

My response to bigqueue
 
"Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that."

>>i never said anything about forks being unfair... nor did i propose anything unfair be done... i merely stated the probable results of any robot trying to make an offensive play with my robot: i would attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own.

"I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)"

>>first, i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions. second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. however neither in my example nor in the original example did anyone "intentionally mangle" another bot.

"Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated."

>>defense never comes into the picture... just an offensive reaction to a potential threat.

-- quotes by bigqueue with my comments inserted

one of my grandfather's favorite sayings went something like this: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. i can make the same analogy when talking about other robots... if a robot seems like it will threaten my robot's safety (such as having a fork lifts), i'll react accordingly to ensure my robot's safety. i don't advocate intentionaly mangling anybody's robot, but i may pay less attention to the damage i do to a fork lifter than any other robot.

George

Scottie2Hottie 09-04-2002 07:17

wrong idea
 
You may have the wrong idea about our Bot. We do not pick the opposing robot completely off the ground, only half way. And thusly, doesnt need the forks to go under the robot only the edge of the robot. Nothing is risked because we dont go under vital parts of the robot. As for the elegance of the matter, I, as well as the rest of my team are proud of our bot and its uniqueness in this years competition. I apologize if its a threat, but please don't bash it because it is.

bigqueue 09-04-2002 07:18

Do you really believe in "An eye for an eye"???
 
Quote:

Originally posted by George180
"Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that."

>>i never said anything about forks being unfair... nor did i propose anything unfair be done... i merely stated the probable results of any robot trying to make an offensive play with my robot: i would attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own.

"I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)"

>>first, i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions. second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. however neither in my example nor in the original example did anyone "intentionally mangle" another bot.

"Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated."

>>defense never comes into the picture... just an offensive reaction to a potential threat.

-- quotes by bigqueue with my comments inserted

one of my grandfather's favorite sayings went something like this: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. i can make the same analogy when talking about other robots... if a robot seems like it will threaten my robot's safety (such as having a fork lifts), i'll react accordingly to ensure my robot's safety. i don't advocate intentionaly mangling anybody's robot, but i may pay less attention to the damage i do to a fork lifter than any other robot.

George

Your message is confusing to me because right off the bat you say that if someone does something "offensive" to you, you would "attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own".

Then you go on to say "i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions"....but you seem to imply that the initial "offensive" move was not right.....yet your move would be "equally offensive"....I know that doesn't mean equally illegal, but that begins to sound like "Clinton Speak" if you claim that.

Then, in the next sentence you say "second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. " I understand that you are talking about my example, but I was creating an example that seemed to me to parallel your desires......

You seemed to be saying "An eye for an eye" or "do unto others as they have done unto you". Is this right? sounds like it to me. If this is the case, then I agree with you....you BOTH should be DQ'd.

I apologize for if this isn't what you are saying, but it reads that way to me.

-Quentin

bigqueue 09-04-2002 07:30

Re: wrong idea
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Scottie2Hottie
You may have the wrong idea about our Bot. We do not pick the opposing robot completely off the ground, only half way. And thusly, doesnt need the forks to go under the robot only the edge of the robot. Nothing is risked because we dont go under vital parts of the robot. As for the elegance of the matter, I, as well as the rest of my team are proud of our bot and its uniqueness in this years competition. I apologize if its a threat, but please don't bash it because it is.
Well, it sounds like your team has put a lot of thought into this, and I have no doubt have a good design.

Many are afraid of things that are "different"....but it is these very differences that allow we humans to progress and move forward.

There are people who live by the moto "dare to be different". ...and I think that is a good thing.

So, don't worry about what others worry about....you just go out there and show us all how it is done!

I hope to see your team at the Nationals! If you see Team 811, stop by and say hello to me in the pit. I will do the same if I see your team.

-Quentin

Wetzel 09-04-2002 09:01

Re: My response to bigqueue
 
Quote:

Originally posted by George180

...
i don't advocate intentionaly mangling anybody's robot, but i may pay less attention to the damage i do to a fork lifter than any other robot.

George

Why? I see no reason for this. All damage should be paid close attention to and treated as bad.
Somewhat wants to score points, and your robot is worth points.
Someone sees your bot as valuable.:)
So they borrow it for a minute or two.;)

kevinw 09-04-2002 10:25

Bring it on!
 
I for one am excited about the possibility of seeing an effective kidnapping robot, given they do not damage the opponent's robot. Is this move offensive? Sure, as offensive as moving a goal or dumping a load of balls. If playing against a kidnapping robot, would I expect my team to do everything within the game to avoid be kidnapped? Sure, as I would expect them to try to prevent a team from capturing the game-winning goal or dumping the game-winning ball. Is there a risk? Absolutely. But I recall several matches this year where a robot was dumping a load of balls, and their opponent rammed into them attempting to jar them from the goal. This impact nearly resulted in the ball robot tipping over (and would have likely resulted in unintentional damage). Similarly, our robot actually lost an arm during a goal tugging war. Again, unintentional damage. I would anticipate that this type of unintentional damage would actually be more significant than a well-designed kidnapping robot would inflict. It's spelled out very clearly in the rules that this is an acceptable action.

However, all of this talk about offensive countermeasures or less care when playing a kidnapping robot bothers me. When playing against a goal-controlling robot, or a ball-gathering robot, we will employ strategies to attempt to win while maximizing qualifying points. The same is true for kidnapping robots. However, if these strategies are unsuccessful, you will not see us attempt to maliciously maul another robot, regardless of what kind of robot it is. That is truly ungracious proffesionalism at its worst, imho. Not only is it not good sportsmanship, but what kind of message does it send to the students?

While I respect the fact that your team spent 6 weeks pouring sweat, blood, and tears into the design, fabrication, and testing of your robot, I also recognize that any kidnapping robot team spent the same 6 weeks doing the same, with the additional responsibility of ensuring that they do not damage a robot that they kidnap. Until proven otherwise, I will always assume a kidnapping robot has met this challenge. How gracious would it be to assume otherwise?

Also, a fork-lifting robot is only a subset of a kidnapping robot. Heck, they might not even be designed to kidnap - merely to lift the front of a robot to reduce their opponent's traction. If it's legal, I'd like to see it at Nationals.

Scottie2Hottie 09-04-2002 11:25

Thanks to all the defenders of our bot. I thank everyone who has thought this through logically and without bias. Our team definately respects all the work everyone has put into their robots and thusly thought our fork system through thouroughly. In no way do we ever intend to harm any machine. Bigque, kevin, wetzel, and everyone else who can look at this with an open mind and see there is nothing wrong with lifting, thank you.

Big Que I will definately come and see you in the pits at nats.

George1902 09-04-2002 11:28

i don't mean to sound hypocritical... really =-]

i just meant to get across that i, personally, would have different strategies depending on the robot i face... ball grabbers -- keep them busy and away from the goals... goal grabbers -- get to the goals first... kidnappers -- get them before they get you

i think i tried to get too cute with my words and my meaning was lost... i'm no english major, after all =-]

George

Ben Mitchell 09-04-2002 15:45

I think a major pint being ignored is that even if damage is done unintentionally, a kidnapper robot can put another team out of a competition with severe damage.

I am NOT saying that all of these bots have evil intent, but their actions, by lifting another robot, increase the chances of damamging another robot.

I dont think anyone can refute that fact: By lifting a robot you are making a bet that the robot will survive unmarred. It is a gamble, and using another team's robot as a playing chip makes it a serious one.

As for comparing these robots to ball grabbers or goal mover being threatening on the field:rolleyes: :confused: ...

You can always disengage when losiing a pushing war.

You can always try and outmanuver other bots if you are a ball grabber :eek: and get balls into another goal.

But when your robot is picked up, there is nothing you can do, and since colliding with them with the intent of jarring them loose is illegal (damage) they are protected by the ruels they exploit in order to pick up other robots.

A clear danger? No (did i say that, anyway?) But it does represent an increased risk. I don't think anyone can argue with that!

--Ben Mitchell

kevinw 09-04-2002 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
I think a major pint being ignored is that even if damage is done unintentionally, a kidnapper robot can put another team out of a competition with severe damage.

I am NOT saying that all of these bots have evil intent, but their actions, by lifting another robot, increase the chances of damamging another robot.

I dont think anyone can refute that fact: By lifting a robot you are making a bet that the robot will survive unmarred. It is a gamble, and using another team's robot as a playing chip makes it a serious one.

As for comparing these robots to ball grabbers or goal mover being threatening on the field:rolleyes: :confused: ...

You can always disengage when losiing a pushing war.

You can always try and outmanuver other bots if you are a ball grabber :eek: and get balls into another goal.

But when your robot is picked up, there is nothing you can do, and since colliding with them with the intent of jarring them loose is illegal (damage) they are protected by the ruels they exploit in order to pick up other robots.

A clear danger? No (did i say that, anyway?) But it does represent an increased risk. I don't think anyone can argue with that!

--Ben Mitchell

Kidnapping robots are not exploiting any rules.

Many robots can not disengage in a pushing war.

However, I completely agree that a ball grabber can always try to outmaneuver a robot that may unintentionally damage it due to contact. This ALSO applies to the same robot when presented with a risk of being kidnapped. You have the same defense.

Again, many robots nearly tipped over at some of the regionals I've seen, and I believe the damage sustained if that were to occur would greatly exceed the damage being discussed here.

In last year's cooperative game, we went to an off-season competition in which there was an all-girls event. During this event, our robot became intertwined with one of our partners and a number of pneumatics hoses were ripped apart. It happens. We repaired our robot and continued to compete. At the very least, give these robots a chance to demonstrate the care they have taken in their design before whining about how they're going to rip your robot to pieces.

Ben Mitchell 09-04-2002 16:12

#1 Why would you have a robot unable to disengage a goal?
#2 pushing war = you must be pushing back, that's a voluntary act

#3 Outmanvuering (org. spelling) a robot to put balls in a goal, and running away from them because they're going to lift you up...and out...of the competition are two different situations. Sorry, but I can't see robot-lifters compared to ball-getters. They seem like opposites to me.


As for the care they put into a design? I probably wont care if their robot unintentionally mangles another. I'll state it once again:

!!!!!!!It presents a heightened risk!!!!!!!!!!

Is such a gamble safe and OK to do? Lifting up other bots sounds like a battlebots pillow fight, not like FIRST.

As for robots tipping over: if they nearly tip in a pushing war, odds are they will fall over if lifted, right?

Its a wonderful feat of engineering, but its for Battlebots, Sorry guys, Carmen Electra's in the other robotics competition. (Ouch, that hurts)

As for me whining, I don't think you'll have to worry about that. I try and present my argument with clarity and reasoning, something that sometimes lacks when just opinions are presented...

--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts have never won fair lasses>>

Chris Hibner 09-04-2002 16:35

Keep it to the point, please
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
#3 Outmanvuering (org. spelling) ...

Making personal attacks about typos really undermines any credibility you've built up. When I see stuff like this I usually ignore the rest of the post since it appears you're only interested in attacking stupid things instead of making a valid point.

Nobody is a perfect typist. I don't think any of us want our posts picked apart for typos.

Andy: would this violate the "Prive Directive"?

Wetzel 09-04-2002 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell


#1 Why would you have a robot unable to disengage a goal?

...
--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts have never won fair lasses>>

I have seen many a robot that once they latch onto a goal, they stay latched for they have no realse mechanism.

kevinw 09-04-2002 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
#1 Why would you have a robot unable to disengage a goal?
#2 pushing war = you must be pushing back, that's a voluntary act

#3 Outmanvuering (org. spelling) a robot to put balls in a goal, and running away from them because they're going to lift you up...and out...of the competition are two different situations. Sorry, but I can't see robot-lifters compared to ball-getters. They seem like opposites to me.


As for the care they put into a design? I probably wont care if their robot unintentionally mangles another. I'll state it once again:

!!!!!!!It presents a heightened risk!!!!!!!!!!

Is such a gamble safe and OK to do? Lifting up other bots sounds like a battlebots pillow fight, not like FIRST.

As for robots tipping over: if they nearly tip in a pushing war, odds are they will fall over if lifted, right?

Its a wonderful feat of engineering, but its for Battlebots, Sorry guys, Carmen Electra's in the other robotics competition. (Ouch, that hurts)

As for me whining, I don't think you'll have to worry about that. I try and present my argument with clarity and reasoning, something that sometimes lacks when just opinions are presented...

--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts have never won fair lasses>>

Ben, we have a robot that can not disengage a goal because it is impossible for a robot to steal it once we've latched on. In fact, a great many robots I've seen are similar. If it can be unlatched intentionally during the match, it can be unlatched unintentionally during the match, hence the motivation.

Regarding the pushing war - see above. If you can not disengage, then you are going to be in a pushing war regardless. It's something that should've been considered during the design. Every team should know that opponents may go after goals and attempt to steal them. Just like every team should know that opponents may go after your robot and attempt to steal it. It's in the rules. It will be exciting to watch. It's perfectly legal, gracious, and professional.

When we brainstorm, we recognize that there are a lot of teams, and that practically every design we brainstorm will be seen in one form or another. If it's in the rules, it will be there. Likewise, you should account for such things when designing your robot. Failure to do so is not the fault of the fork-lifting robot who does.

Keith Chester 09-04-2002 19:32

My 2 cents:
As for not being able to disengage a goal, I've seen 6 teams not able to do so. Some on purpose, some unfourtantly not.
As for the forklift idea- it's a great idea! During the design phase my team actually had though of this, and to use our tethered mini me (that stays in our home zone) be a mini dolli that holds up the robot. I'm sharing this now because we didn't use the design for forklifts (we aimed for goal grabbing instead) and thought it was a neat idea to share. I haven't seen any forklifting mechanisms yet and I am anxious to see a good one.
Is it illegal? Nope. Just keep them down while running, and you won't damage anyone and get disqualified.
As for the attacking people based on typos and, in fact, many of the arguments I've witnessed here on the boards- that's childish. That is not gracious professionalism. If you are angry at a certain team's robot simply because of it's design or effectiveness (or lack thereof) or of an individual because he supports a certain view (as long as the view is not ignorant [basically without fact like one person in the rumor mill saying other teams cheated] or a blatant LIE which I've also unfourtantly seen) then suck it up. You won't get through life arguing with every individual you'll meet. You are not always right and you will not always win an argument. One last statement on arugements- learn to fight them better. Not all of you, just a select few that pick out stupid points or don't do their homework and make up facts out of the blue. It's a useful skill to argue intelligently
As for FIRST gracious professionalism, I think that includes open mindedness to new designs and robot concepts. The forklift is one of them.
My 2 cents, as I stated. Sorry if it's late or if I got off topic. And since the nationals are coming up, good luck to every team. I can't wait to see those forklifts!

Keith Chester 09-04-2002 19:36

One last thing I accidentally forgot. A pushing war is tough to get out of. If they intend on ramming you into a wall, and you wish to escape, you will have to turn out of it, not back up. If you turn out of it, you may get hit in such a way you will be pushed by your side or turned roughly to the side. That turn may damage you. Also, the pushing may be so intense that turning is simply no longer an option, being that you are either up against a wall already or to turn on 1 side of wheels for but a second is enough time to let them start pushing you across the field.
So, it is indeed possible to not be able to disengage from a pushing war. By the way, I've seen some good pushers out there, so the scenario of extreme pushing is possible- I've seen it happen at Rutgers.

Chief'sDad 09-04-2002 20:01

Looking for 862 picture on firstrobotics.net....not there. Such an interesting discussion and I can't picture the machine....

Keith Chester 09-04-2002 20:13

Yea! 862 could you kindly provide us a picture?

Dodd 10-04-2002 10:23

I am curious - what has in fact been the performance record of the "kidnapper" bots at the Regionals so far? This thread has had a good bit of speculation and opinion, but what has actually happened?

I don't mean trapping an opponent in your home zone and blocking him till the buzzer, and I don't mean pushing him into the home zone. I mean either picking up the opponent and carrying - with a "forklift" that goes underneath - or grappling and dragging with a gripper of some kind.

There was a really neat looking fork bot in the pits near us at UTC/NE (sorry, guys, I forget your number), but I didn't see it manage to pull off an abduction during any of the matches.

Finally - my opinion/attitude - it's a made-up game with arbitrary rules. It's a design space. Anything and EVERYTHING in the design space is fair game. To impose one's own restrictions on some things in the space as being unprofessional or ungracious is to be unprepared. The rules regarding kidnapping were there at the beginning (unlike some other unfortunate examples this year), they were questioned/discussed/interpreted/clarified early on, and they were not subsequently modified or rescinded. The possible consequences of the kidnapping rules are simply part of the game this year. When we designed our bot, we accepted that we should not have delicate hardware exposed on the underneath side, such that forks or a platform poked under there and lifting would cause serious damage.

We were not HAPPY about this whole kidnapping thing, and we worried about the RISK of (unintentional) damage, but we could not afford to ignore the possibility of robots being designed to play a kidnapping strategy. In fact, one of the really neat things about FIRST is that virtually anything that the rules allow almost inevitably WILL show up in some team's robot. Seeing the amazingly creative executions, and then watching how the strategies play out in the matches is a blast. I've always thought that cruising the pits beats every hot rod show I've ever seen.

Dodd

Scottie2Hottie 10-04-2002 11:16

The thing about kidnapping
 
The problem with kidnapping is the need for it in normal qualifying matches is minamal unless you are really being blown out. To make up for this we pickup as much as possible during the practice rounds to demonstrate our ability to do so. Otherwise it's not too helpful until finals when its just a pulling fest. We finished in 16th place at WMR and ended up not getting picked. Thats the way things go sometimes. As for Nats, were hopeful to do a little more kidnapping ( we did it about 4 times at WMR ). Thats the stats and story on our fork bot.

Ben Mitchell 10-04-2002 15:30

Re: Keep it to the point, please
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Hibner


Making personal attacks about typos really undermines any credibility you've built up. When I see stuff like this I usually ignore the rest of the post since it appears you're only interested in attacking stupid things instead of making a valid point.

Nobody is a perfect typist. I don't think any of us want our posts picked apart for typos.

Andy: would this violate the "Prive Directive"?

Huh? I was talking about my own spelling. I didnt want to look it up, and i was about to leave, so i but in the (org. spelling) so people would'nt think i was too dumb to realize my own spelling mistakes. Thank you very much, but I find it too hard to do personal attacks across the internet.

I'm getting bored of repling to this post, it seems like a losing battle, so...

CYA!

Not2B 10-04-2002 21:16

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! (Sorry, trademark yell)
 
Howdy,

Long time listener, first time poster, first time FIRST engineer...

I tried to find a picture for those interested. Then I realized I didn't have a good one of the lifters. They are bar stock with cables about 5 in from the pivot point. They are powered by 2 of the ...uh... large bore cylinders at 60 psi. We can lift ...uh... Tony.

Maybe a list would work best.
- 862 can't lift anyone TOTALLY off the ground - that's crazy talk
- 862 has only tried to lift very stable robots, any only one side
- 862 only lifts a few inches - just enough
- We really REALLY don't want to hurt another robot, because robots tend to hold a grudge (as I am quickly learning) :)
- We really wanted to do more than move goals
- We never considered a baller getter chucker thingy since we didn't have alot of money. (Most teams spent more on speed controllers than we did on the robot)
- Did I mention we really REALLY don't want to hurt any robots? Because we don't want to hurt them.
- We wanted to learn about the pnumatics, and had nothing else to do with them. Seemed like a good idea at the time. :)
- We tried to think "outside the box" and lifters happened to be right next to the "box".

Anyway... all good things to learn for next year.

Brian (Not2B) (Heebie Geebie) Graham

P.S. - I saw the "no harm, no foul" message from the Chief about picking them up. Glad to hear that from you... we didn't want to upset anyone - just try to come up with something a little different, a little fun.

ChrisH 10-04-2002 21:18

We have a multi-function device on the front of our robot. It engages goals and allows us to pull or push them. We also can lift them up to lock the goal in place and transfer weight.

Why does a description of it belong in this thread? Because we can also get under other robots with it and push them around. We've done it to Kingman when they were carrying goals, though admittedly it was during a practice round. No harm done to Kingman either, we asked.

It also reduces the need for a bumper. With that pointy thing out front nobody wants to hit us.

refclm 11-04-2002 10:57

Forklift Robot
 
I think that I wouldn't, unless you can do something else. Also, can't you only hold it up for 10 seconds? That is a major downfall. Also, you can't get under the goal and get disqualified. Probably not the best idea, but you might do well. Once again, just my thoughts.....

Scottie2Hottie 11-04-2002 11:44

Lifting isnt considered pinning so we can hold on as long as we want. This isnt the only feature of our robot anyways, we have a hook to grab to goals with as well.

Wetzel 11-04-2002 11:58

Team Update 6 had some questions culled from the Yahoo message board.

Q: Is it legal to DRAG an opposing alliance robot against its will into your home zone for an additional 10 points?
A: Yes, be careful that the mechanism you are using to attach (or drag) a robot can be easily released. Also remember that the 1-minute setup and resetting period will apply, see GM6.

Q: Will this violate the 'PINNING" rules?
A: No. Pinning refers to holding a robot against the edge of the field or against the side of the goal.


Lift away! :)

refclm 11-04-2002 12:39

Fork Lift Robot
 
It appears I spoke too soon. My understanding was that you could not pick up robots, it would be considered pinning, but I was proven wrong. My mistake! Sorry, it is smart since you can disable the other robot without being DQ'd.

Phil Chang 11-04-2002 18:26

Can you lift a bot that is lifting goals?
 
Team 469 incorporates lifting ability when attached to goals, since you feel that you can dominate goal bots in that respect, do you also have th capability to lift about 130 lbs plus the added weight of 2 goals say about 300lbs? have you ever tried?

as for my views about the legality of forlifting bots, i say its a great idea, as our team discussed it but felt the clause in the ruling to be too risky for our tastes.

-TheChosun

Perseus 11-04-2002 18:27

i might tinyfarnsworth
 
It all matters what else can you do. If you can only "pick" up a robot, then no. But if you can handle balls and/or grab goals maybe.

I mean, it would be nice to have a bot tat could disable the powerful robot trying to torque us so i might even say yes actually if all you could do is that and hav enough power to win some tug-of-war matches

Jnadke 12-04-2002 13:12

I think bot lifting is a very good idea and is perfectly fine thing to do. I'm sure the inspectors make sure the device is safe for other robots, being as strict as they were.

Lifting was one if the wacky and crazy ideas that I was pondering... along withe electromagnet goal grabbers...

kevinw 12-04-2002 15:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Jnadke
I think bot lifting is a very good idea and is perfectly fine thing to do. I'm sure the inspectors make sure the device is safe for other robots, being as strict as they were.

Lifting was one if the wacky and crazy ideas that I was pondering... along withe electromagnet goal grabbers...

Of course, as I understand it, lifting is explicitly allowed in the rules, and electromagnets are explicitly disallowed. Other than that, they're an excellent idea.

Gui Cavalcanti 12-04-2002 21:07

Whee...
 
Something I just realized is that our robot is somewhat invulnerable to being lifted. Unless you bodily pick up all 4 wheels of the ground (unlikely, unless you have forklifts that extend 30 some inches), you'll never be able to put us in a position where no 2 wheels (all 4 are powered) are off the ground - our wheels are on the outside of our chassis.

Check it out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gsgisr...s/files/IT.jpg

After reading the menagerie of posts about the subject, I can see how some teams might get concerned about the safety of their robot when being lifted. I say, try all you want. We may get loose somehow with our two remaining wheels, and we have an 80 pound aluminum chassis with no moving parts on the bottom. Scratches are always cool-looking :p

However, I can see how other teams might be worried. A lot of teams I've seen have internal wheel assemblies, so picking one up might make them motionless (and subsequently draggable/sitting ducks).

I like the robot design. It shows thinking outside the box, just like Beatty. If we ever have a practice match with or against you, please try to pick us up. I want to see if I can outmaneuver and/or get away while being lifted :)

Scottie2Hottie 12-04-2002 21:19

4 wheel drive
 
We thought this through in our design phase, we have tiny barbs at the end of our forks _____A (crude picture) about 2 cm high that can be removed that holds on to a cross beam on the opponents bot. And even with 4 wheel drive what happens is a reduction in traction on your part and an increace in traction on our part due to the shift in weight of your robot. although it may not be as easy, we still think we could pull you around. although we always like to see casters on bots :D

Anarkissed 14-04-2002 03:49

hey
 
1 Attachment(s)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! :D 862

heh okay

you guys wanted a picture of the robot with lift? well here ya go..... this was at western michigan regionals after the lifts got a little damaged in the round, but its the only clear picture i found of the lifts...

Chief'sDad 14-04-2002 08:01

Good job on the picture. Thanks

Perseus 14-04-2002 14:36

you guys need to stop badgering 862. They thought of a neat strategy that was in the rules and i peronally think its fine. it is not like they are flipping your robot over. Anyway, i am sure thatmatces with them are probably more exciting, seeing as how their oppoents have to play the game while avoiding 862. I for one cogratulate them

Anarkissed 14-04-2002 15:45

thank you perseus (sp?) :D

Scottie2Hottie 15-04-2002 11:41

the forks in the picture were broken off but by the picture you can get a basic idea of what they look like. Normally the forks are attached firmly to our robot, in that picture they wern't.

kmcclary 16-04-2002 12:09

If it's legal, it's legal...
 
A few comments on the Forklift debate:

1) If it is legal, it is LEGAL. Lifting robots was explicitly declared legal. Therefore, it does NOT violate "Gracious Professionalism". Let's get past this. Just because a team decides NOT to do it, it doesn't make it "unfair" if another decides to do so.

BTW, Our team thought about forklifts and wedges, and as a group DECIDED to go another way. Also, as our robot had a center wheel differential drive with casters at the four corners, we were conscious that we were VERY vulnerable to lifters, who could easily have turned us into a wheelbarrow on either end. <whew>

Some of us are kicking ourselves now as had we had kept a traction breaker of some kind, it would have been great against any robot who "commits" to a goal grab with a locking gripper & parks with it. Not having a Goal Release becomes a serious liability for them! :)

2) Do NOT confuse "equipment" with "driver intent". There is a BIG difference between the ability to lift or move, and intent to damage . The driver decides how to use the robot. Just because a robot has a wedge or a forklift, doesn't mean it is going to "spear other robots" or break things with it. A driver could just as easily use a ball gadget or goal gripper as a weapon if they so chose.

In fact, we would have preferred being forklifted than what did happen to us!

Our machine's drivetrain was shattered FOUR times by ramming. Our gears were attached to our driveshafts by steel pins. In four separate rounds, one or another drive pin was literally sheared right off. It took us dying four times before we could strengthen all of the pinned joints enough. In fact, one of the times we were dead on the field from a shattered drive pin, a robot hijacked us via pushing, and took us into their home zone to add to their score. There was NOTHING we could do about it.

Now had they simply forklifted us instead of ramming us, we would have sustained a lot less damage, and may even have been able to wiggle free or drive back out!

3) Two Goal Handling Tanks are dominating now. I'm really tired of that. After two Regionals, I saw the game time after time totally swamped by a "rush out, grab two, and park in your zone in the first 30 seconds" strategy. Very little field ball work, etc. Boooorrrrring... They think they "know" that no one can touch them!

But... If anyone that tried that and sat with their "hands full of goals" had to worry about attracting opposing traction breakers who'll steal them AND their goals, that opens up a whole new strategy area! :)

So, to any team that has a traction breaker of some kind (or can whip one up in a day in the pits and add it on :) ), I say GO FOR IT! Too many teams out there who think the key to this game is to grab and hold two goals and forget about the field balls. IMHO "scrum moving" is a great counter move!

It opens things up for much more interesting strategy possibilities. It'll be like "rock, paper, scissors". Goal hoarders that use goal weight to lock themselves down won't dominate any more, and "ball count balancing" becomes more important again. :) If you keep the goal between you and another bot, they'll lock onto it and play tug of war. If you keep yourself in the middle, they lift you and steal you AND the goal!

The chance of a situation reversal with the clock running out is always the biggest major adrenaline point in any good game. WHO will grab WHAT first? Who will then try to steal THEM? There'd be waiting games, "who'll flinch first", and less stalemates. "Dancing with goals" becomes much more complex because now you'd have to avoid other goal grippers AND forklifts. :)

We're done now, but if I was working with a team that wasn't (AND had a strong enough drivetrain to move a scrum), I'd strongly consider using the competition Workday Thursday to whip up a simple drop wedge on a roller, or a simple "plate & roller tow dolly" of some kind which could be jammed under a darn goal parking tank with a spare cylinder to break their traction. Anything that would let us move any machine that tried to imitate a "brick" with a goal or two in their possession... :)

- Keith


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:09.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi