Re: FIRST records
 

71's file card drive in 2002 was (one of) the reasons that no metal is allowed to contact the floor in traction devices to this day. How to move them: You Don't.

190's 2008 robot was deemed both legal and illegal, depending on event. IIRC, you couldn't break the plane of the lane divider in 2008--they wound up having to change their robot or strategy to not do that.

However, most unique/unorthodox is now a split.
469, 2010--the only immovable diverter that could also shoot goals.
190, 2004--the ONLY robot that could hang from the bar (50 points), block other robots from getting onto the bar (no points for opponents, but add 50 points for a partner), and steal a doubler ball off of a goal and plant it onto their own (doubles your goal points, halves your opponent's), all at the same time. Other teams could do 2 (usually hang and doubler; the few that did hang and block were very good at doing it); nobody else did all 3.

Re: FIRST records
 

Isn't that what 868 did also that year?

Re: FIRST records
 

868 was one of the 2-fers: They had no means of stealing the doubler ball.

64, 190, 237, 330, 868, and 1266 could all block the bar while hanging. 190 and 330 could remove the doubler. But only 190 could place the doubler on their own goal. To make matters worse for their opponents, you just about had to stop them in autonomous mode, and that meant climbing onto their 6" step before they did.

Re: FIRST records
 

All you had to do was push from the side or back. Pushed into the field side, they were not able to maneuver. File cards can't steer. 111 managed to do exactly that in Chicago but lost the match when our human player gave them additional points in the heat of the match.

Although the file cards did fluff up the carpet a little, it was the cleats and other anchor devices that teams used that penetrated the carpet and damaged the floor beneath. One such incident damaged a newly painted basketball court as I remember. There was a team that actually used circular saw blades for wheels one year.

Re: FIRST records
 

2992.
51.

Re: FIRST records
 

If either one had a kicker, I'll retract my statement. But IIRC, neither one did. 469 kicked, scored by redirecting, and couldn't be gotten out of the tunnel without an awful lot of work (or leaving on their own).

Oh, and 125 was also a hanging diverter.

Re: FIRST records
 

Maybe revise and say the only diverter that reliably scored goals/could easily direct the path of balls. 70, 494, and many others could also easily redirect goals.

Re: FIRST records
 

51 had a kicker and a diverter (hung to divert).

2337 also had a diverter that functioned both while they were on the ground and when the were waiting for people to suspend off them.

Both were immovable once they hung. Both were relatively strong scorers without their diverter.

Re: FIRST records
 

Seeing as I can't edit my previous post:

469 was the most reliable (and feared) tunnel-blocking diverter in 2010.

@Duke: I don't count the many slope-side diverters in the same category as the dedicated diverters like 469, 51, and 125. There's a pretty big difference between having a sloped side to simply bounce the balls in the general direction you want them to go and being able to put the ball in the goal using a diversion channel. Could they divert? Yes. Could they score and divert at the same time? They did need luck on their side.

Re: FIRST records
 

I agree, thats why i suggested a clearer way of putting it. I knew what you meant when referencing 469. However, lavery brought up 2992 and i had never seen their bot before, and not one of the pics from Nationals was from the front side so i couldnt really tell if they could score or not. Sorry for the confusion. ;)

Re: FIRST records
 

A couple examples of 2992:

http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm32
http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2010cur_qm69

Re: FIRST records
 

This is completely wrong. They both did, that's how both of them won their events.

Re: FIRST records
 

Reported

Re: FIRST records
 

The more I think about it, the more profound the spam was. It was essentially talking about recording oneself while playing an instrument so it was in a different context, but I'd like to bring up what it said. It said that recording can be both an ego boost and humbling. I think the same is true for setting a record. It can certainly be an ego boost but it can also be humbling. Sometimes realizing what your capable of just shows how much more there is to do. I mean, great that you did well at robotics but now what? The fact that you set a record worthy of being noted means that you got talent. With that, you have responsibility. You should be pleased that you did well, but think on to what next. That is where you get both an ego boost and humbled at the same time.

Who knew spam could be so profound?

Jason

Re: FIRST records
 

Many years ago I had the good fortune to meet the father of magnetic recording, Marvin Camras. He started out by devising a method to record his cousin singing opera in the bathroom. His cousin thought himself a great singer but didn't know how he sounded to others. Marvin devised a method of recording on a wire stretched between two trees in the back yard. The recording head was attached to pulleys that rolled down the wire from one tree to another. From that beginning, Marvin went on to develop magnetic recording receiving more than 500 patents over his lifetime. His patents covered magnetic recording on floppy disc and hard drives. He also wrote a paper in 1962 titled "Magnetic recording and reproduction - 2012 A.D.". In this paper he predicted mass storage of audio and video in devices no bigger than a pack of cards with no moving parts.