Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

I remember a few matches in 1995 where teams pushed each other off the side of the ramp - which not only caused the loser to tip over, but sometimes they'd actually tumble down the side of the ramp, rolling completely over a few times.

Here's a picture of the ramp in 1995, which incidentally appears to have a tipped over robot next to it. You can't see it well here, but the grey part of the ramp was actually raised up a bit from the red part by a few inches, so it didn't take much to get a robot to roll off the side.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

i understand everyones ideas about the wedge type robot

but that is just part of the game

im not sure which robot it was but it was the one that had the wedges that flipped down and thats all they had
they were unable to hurt robots with higher ground clearance
if they had 4 wedges (which im not sure) they had 3 later

this may have been our doing when we drove over their robot without any effect on us

ps..sorry if we broke your wedge

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

As intention flipping is no longer a part of the game, then we should take steps to minimize it. Right now, wedges seem to be the biggest cause of flipping, both intentional and non. I agree that more than 90% of flips are unintentional, but wedges increase the number of flips, and theres no way you can argue that.
Im not saying eliminate wedges as a whole, Im just saying enforce the flipping rules a bit more strictly and ask teams who's wedges become hazardous to do something about it. That could be as simple as adding stops to the wedges to prevent teams from driving too far up them.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

That's fine, but then the same logic should be applied to any robot with a powerful drivetrain who successfully pushes over another team. I've seen plenty of robots without ramps but with plenty of muscle do this (unintentionally, probably, but the same can be said of the ramp-bots).
If another team is driving up someone's ramps then the robot with ramps and tips then I don't see how it's the ramp-bot's fault. Anyone who is competing in this competition should know what happens to a robot's center of gravity when it drives up an incline ;)

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Very few tips are intentional. Even with the rules, some teams may decide to do it on the spur of the moment, and are promptly shut down, depriving their partners of a teammate. Regarding proportion of tippings: I saw more robots tip over due to entaglement high up, say in their arm (we were one of them, but we righted ourselves), or just plain having 9+ pounds too high up.

If the wedges are used properly, the flips are kept to a minimum. If someone has a drivetrain and a wedge and that's their robot, that could be and probably is improper use. If a team uses them for stabilization or defense against defenders, that is more likely to be a proper use.

If you add stops to the wedges to keep teams from driving too far up, how does that stop a team with, say, two tetras at the top of their arm from going partway up, tilting just enough to move their CG beyond a point of support, and falling down?

Expect that at least one and probably more robots will have some form of wedge, unless FIRST bans them. Implement a self-righting system if you have weight for it.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

My teams bumpers were mentioned above. It was our teams alternative to what we considered disqualification magnent wedges.



They were parallelograms spring loaded down. When a robot hit us they would dig into the cushioned side and push the bumpers up, pulling their front wheels off the ground and shifting some of their weight onto us. In theory they worked well but they had a couple issues. First was weight, to cover all 4 sides weighed about 12 pounds plus a 5 pound powered lifting mechanism which we removed. The other issue was that they just didn't work as well as wedges. We were rarely pushing other robots and while they didn't have the danger of tipping other robots we just didn't need that.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

By adding the stops low down on the wedges. If you have the stop just high enough on the ramp that the front wheels lose contact with the floor, it will acheive the same thing as having no stops at all, but reduce the chance that it will tip. The stops couldnt possibly stop 100% of the tippings, but they would reduce them. There will never be a way that you can eliminate all tipping.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently. What I meant was so that when a wedges gets under another robot, and the robot is travelling up it in some manner (either robot driving) it wont allow the robot to travel up the full incline of the ramp, therefore reducing the angle an which the robot is tilted, which reduces the chance its CG will extend beyond its supported area.


And beyond all that, most of claims to support wedges from a defensive point show them as a defense against "Bricks". Well, if its a brick it probably doesnt have an arm or a high CG, so if it tips, its definately not its own fault. The bots that do tip usually are ones with large arms or very high arms. Well if these bots are on a wedge, either the wedge is trying to force them out of position or a "brick" isnt the problem playing defence against the wedge. If its got a massive tetra carrying arm, its not a pure defensive bot, and if theres interaction between you and it, it is often the wedge bot trying to play last minute defense, not the armed bot. And in that situation it would most definately be the wedged bot's fault.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Is the "brick" attempting to block a robot that is attempting to cap? that capper is concentrating on capping, and if the "brick" drives up a wedge, particularly a side wedge, and falls over, how is that "not its own fault"?

Most wedges are used for defense or stabilization. If it has a tetra-carrying arm, but is NOT using it, and has been playing defense the whole time, and it climbs up a wedge and gets stuck, whose fault is that?

Yes, the brickbot is not a problem if it is on a wedge --Match 70, Newton, was a good example-- but what if the wedge is on the SIDE of the wedgebot, and the wedgebot cannot move side to side, even under normal conditions? Whose fault is that if the brickbot tips over?

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Because of the "brick's" low CG, it should very very rarely tip unless something else forces it to do so.
If the armed bot is playing defense, fault would be assossiated depending on the situation.
If the wedge can drive backwards, then in most (not quite all) situations its the wedges fault. Especially in an open field layout like this year. If the wedge can drive backwards, it can turn then avoid the "brick". If the brick keeps driving at you, eventually you'll hit a wall, and the brick will be called for pinning. If you dont have the time for a pinning situation, this year you could enter a loading zone, and if they follow you there, they will most likely be assessed the 30 pt penalty. In other years it would be different, but then again in other years tipping has been part of the game as well.
But if the wedge truly had NO OTHER option, it would be a refs call. If it had another option and it chose to tip the brick anyway, it would be the wedges fault. The brick was there to play defense, dont be upset when it does it sucessfully.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Did I say anything about the wedge bot moving BACKWARDS? Let us suppose (as one possible situation) that there are two brick bots defending the same wedge bot, which, for all intents and purposes, and for reasons unknown, only has side wedges. One brick bot gets behind it so it can't move backward (and we are supposing that this whole scenario takes less than 10 seconds) as the other charges from the side. The brick bot coming from the side hits the wedges hard enough to go up, hits the top, and falls over. Whose fault is that?

Brick bots should know enough to stay away from inclined planes that are not shallow enough to climb without tipping. Yes, a brick bot should have a low CG, and most, if not all, do. But if the slope that it is driving up is too steep for it, it will most likely fall over.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Well that situation it wouldnt be the wedges fault. But that is one of the few situations I said it wouldnt be. Note how I said if it truly had no other option, it wouldnt always be the wedges fault.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

I think you're all looking at this on too general of a level and with way, way, waaayyy too many "What if" situations. Obviously there are advantages and to disadvantages. FIRST can ban them, or they cannot. In the latter case teams should be aware that when driving a robot with it - they must be careful, teams going against a 'wedgebot' should know better than to drive themselves up it. Overall it must be handled in a case by case situation, no two situations in a FIRST match are going to be the same - the rules need to be written to guide the inspectors and referees who are the ones who must make the final decision.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

Sample "guide" rule: If a robot drives up a wedge or other traction-reducing device and tips over, flips, or otherwise becomes inoperable, that is not the fault of the robot with said wedge. If, on the other hand, the robot with said wedge or traction-reducing device drives into the other robot, and the other robot becomes inoperable, that is (a penalty--FIRST's decision what) on the robot with the wedge. If both robots are judged at fault, that is a referee's call as to who gets penalized or not."

OK, it's a bit legalistic and all that, but it gets the point across (I hope) as to who is at fault in a general sense.

Re: Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?
 

I don't think this should be against the rules. If the team has high angles on it's robot and it flips another robot, it gets a penalty. I don't think any teams intent is to play dirty. Ramps really are for only helping the team, not so much as a defense.