Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

That puts us in what is more or less an arm's race, but with wedges. Who can make the best wedges without becoming a hazard to breaking the rules. If all the teams start using wedges to avoid being tipped by wedges, whats the point of them in the first place? At that point, why not just say no wedges? :confused:

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Because then you open up a whole new can of worms...exactly what angle is considered a wedge. ;)

I don't recall seeing any incidences of wedges tipping other bots this season. It was such an offensive game anyway.

My team (since I've been on it) has never built a wedge bot. The only time I recall having an issue with one, was in 2003 when 111 was defending their stack and we drove up on them at some odd angle so that our treads were no longer making contact with the ground and we couldn't move. But that was our fault not theirs.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

As soon as FIRST does something to prevent 'boxes on wheels' from repeatedly ramming us, we'll remove the wings & ramps, until then we need to protect our robot and our chances of being successful in the game. The teams whose sole strategy is ramming and pushing have brought this upon themselves. Teams get fed up with being a whipping post for the rammers so we have to take action. If you want to be able to push teams across the field or ram without flipping yourselves, come up with a new strategy or design to beat the ramps. We've found a way to deflect the blows, now it's your turn to innovate and come up with something new. Come up with a better way to play defense that doesn't rely on ramming and destruction.

To me the complaining coming from the rammers & pushers just sounds like sour grapes. You want to show off your perceived power and other teams come up with a simple and effective way to prevent it.

I guess the answer depends on perspective. I think the winner of a pushing match should be decided by the entire robot (wedges and all), not just the drive train.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Actually, that will fit in rather well with the planned "no fasteners" rule for next year...
Of course, the other way to address it is to design a game where sloped sides are REQUIRED on every robot! Then everyone would be on the same level playing field (or sloped playing field, or whatever) :)

-dave

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Wedges have tipped robots, but for the most part they brought it on themselves. I did not see this match, but I heard about it: Newton 2005. Practice (which is supposed to be minimum contact): 1595 and 330 start mixing it up on the field. 1595 goes up 330's side wedge and flips over.

If you don't like wedges, live with them until they are banned. Box-bots with strong drivetrains or robots assigned to play defense stay away from the wedges on other robots, they don't tip. They go up the wedges and tip, whose fault depends on where the wedge is (side, front or back) and who is pushing.

I personally have no problem with wedges. Robots with them are more stable and if they are tipped, someone probably pulled them over or they went up a surface that was too steep. Robots without them can avoid the ones with them. And, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em--if you have the weight.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

OR we could go back to better time in FIRST history when the policy on tipping was basically you shouldn't tip intentionally but if tipping does happen and you're the robot being tipped you had better design your robot to withstand that. Accept the fact that you are going to be tipped at a competition and build your robot accordingly...no problem. Also realize that audiences love to see robots go over. I think that the policing got well out of hand this year by the time we got to nationals where was almost no area on the field you could maneuver without risking a penalty and if you flipped someone look out you were either going to get a 60 point penalty or nothing at all depending upon which division you were playing in. How about everyone build some robust robots and we let things happen as they will instead of trying to play police and make sure nothing bad ever happens on the playing field.

Justin

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Justin,
I don't remember any time in the past where it was acceptable to intentionally tip another robot. If not officially frowned upon it has been a hazard for humans near the playing field and for field pieces and therefore has not been allowed. There are other competitions where the field is enclosed. In that competition tipping is OK and encouraged.
I am in the audience and I do not like to see robots go down.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Just a quick history tidbit to throw in here. Many years ago in FIRST, tipping was not only accepted, it was actively encouraged (does anyone else here remember the infamous <Rule F7> from 1997?). Back then, part of Dean's introduction talk at the kick-off for each season included a statement that went something like "offense and defense are both parts of this game. This is a sport, just like football. Just like football, you can tackle the other players. But there are limits - you can tackle, but you can't clip. In this game, instead of tackling you can tip over other robots. And knowing that, you should design your robots accordingly - the potential for being tipped is part of the challenge. The well-designed robots will be able to deal with that, and will be able to get back up if they are tipped." As you walked through the pits those years, you could see all sorts of little devices that were incorporated into the robots that were specifically designed to lift up the edge of an opponent robot and flip it onto its back (one of the best that I remember was from Team 118 and the small, very effective flippers on each corner of the robot that Charley Price designed for the robot that year). Several of the mentors had a very long, very interesting discussion with Dean about the tipping ideas while sitting around the hotel at Disney in 1996. He made it very clear that tipping was part of the game, and he expected to see a lot of robots go over - and see a lot of them get up and continue in the game. The prohibition against intentional tipping did not come into play until, I believe, 1998 (or possibly 1999).

-dave

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

What I love is that Dave still remembers the exact rule title. That is an interesting little factoid Dave, though I'm not quite sure how destruction of your opponents robot fits into GP.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

if you'll take another look at dave's post, you'll see that in no way, shape, or form do they encorouge destruction of the opponent, but rather tipping (in a non-destructive manner, i assume)
i might be mixed up, but i thought it was rule T5 that allowed the tipping of other robots. i distinctly remember hearing/reading the posts of several rhode warriors that mention a decal on aquatread's flipper reading: "T5 is in effect".

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Some additional history....

It was 1998 when FIRST added the rule against tipping devices. In my opinion it was brought about by current team 121's awesome 1997 tipping machine. There were times when 121 would go out, tip one or two opponents (it was 1 v 1 v 1 back in 1997), and the go on to win the match. They were awesome, and totally legal. They didn't manage to tip us, but they did rip out a major chunk of our drive system in Orlando! We weren't quick enough to outrun them!

Back then it was the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, I seem to remember a motto "Death From Below." Yup, we were scared of 'em.

Ken

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Well that is just about the time I started and only attended MWR in 97 & 98. Ken, I remember a huge controversy over the strategy of 121 that year. It seemed like that subject came up everywhere we went. It was a little more vocal than the rampbot discussion as I remember.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Tipping is now becoming as controversial as pinning. Back in 1996 even pinning was legal... If I remember right, my team won Rumble at the Rock that way. Our robot wasnt awesome that year... and we got the number one ranked team in the nation backed into a corner of the hexigon, and held them there for close to 45 seconds of the end of the match. I can remember getting boo'd... but it wasnt against the rules then... it was a viable strategy, and we won that way.

I have no problem with wedge bots. We thought about it ourselves, but didnt design for it. Its a great defense for other robots trying to push us over. For those who suggest making a stronger drivetrain, think about the tons of teams that do not have their own drivetrains... think of all the teams that used the kit drivetrains because they dont have the uber mechanical Paul's or John's on their team... Not all of us can just design a great drivetrain... but make a triangle? now there is something we can do!

As Doug H mentioned earlier... we were "tipped" by team 302 in the last qualifying match in cleveland... we turned right around and selected that team as our alliance partner because they played very smart defense, and their design was innovative and worked well. Teams (including ours) were scared to go near ramp bots, because of the chance of tipping... so all they had to do was sit in the right spot in the field (not even moving!) and it would be a huge defensive strategy. I think the smarter move is to try to design a robot that can right itself... rather than eliminate the wedges.

So I will go back a few years, does anyone remember Clarkson's robot in 2003? They were basically a drivetrain with two GIANT wings... that were "ramps" that folded down to block the ENTIRE HDPE surface. Now that was a cool and innovative design. Were they meant to aggressively tip other robots? No! Did other robots try to get on the ramp, drive up on their wings and flip over?? Yes! How cool!

I really hope that FIRST does not start making rules on what you cannot do with your robot design... it will limit the creativity, and we will all end up with a robot out of a box. Remember those lego toys where you got the kit and built the ship that looked like the one on the box? It was cool.. but your ship looked JUST like everyone elses... I hope I never see that day in FIRST.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

I completely agree. Look at 330, they had "ramps" on their robot and people were scared to go near them and see what happened. "Ramps" are just another design that teams come up with to play the game. If teams had ramps last year it would have been really awkward if you tried herd balls but it would work if you were trying to block the bar. Who knows, maybe next year the game will be such that having ramps would be very bad. You never know.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

If I remember correctly, there were actually three rules that had to do with tipping/flipping robots. One was <Rule F7>, and I believe you are correct that there was a <Rule T5>, and if I remember correctly there was also a <Rule J-something>. They all dealt with different aspects of how you could legally tip/flip robots. The <F7> rule sticks in my memory because as the controversy over robot-flipping started to heat up in 1998, there were teams that were wearing "No more F-7" buttons at the kick-off. I still have the rules manuals around somewhere. I will have to check when I get back home later this week.

Regarding Beth's comment, you got right at the center of the discussion that took place back then. Robots could be tipped over, and that was legal. Intentional damage or destruction of a robot was strictly prohibited. It was assumed that it was possible to tip over a robot without damaging it. But many teams raised the point that, given the very strict limitations on parts and robot construction abilities that were in place at the time, it was very difficult to build a robot that would be robust enough to handle being flipped over without taking some damage. And they were very upset with the idea that after six weeks of work to create their robot, that it could be severely damaged in just seconds by a simple little machine with a spring-powered spatula. It was an interesting debate, and one which started FIRST on the path toward the various restrictions on robot-on-robot contact that we have today.

-dave