Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

I'm worried you may be right. And with the non-ball end, no doubt. I hope everyone's human players have practice to feed balls up so they can do it slowly and calmly, without whipping that thing around.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

On the topic of hanging, those that were around in 2004 remember how fast robots were able to climb the stairs and platforms and hang with just seconds left in a match. I remember robots that were able to hang and lift with seconds left in the matches on a consistent basis using very simple mechanisms. 8 points in the end game, I can see it happening, and I think the regional(s) that I will be able to attend I will see it with my own eyes.


Best of Luck

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

Our team has done some of the calculations on the forces on the first hanging robot to support a second (didn't even consider the third hanger). Based on that, I think that is as much of a challenge as the time restraint.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

I think we wont see it largely because the top team is unlikely to be comfortable supporting 450(ish)lbs from their tower grabber widget. If its beefy enough to hold up 450 lbs of robot, its going to be heavy, and i doubt anyone is going to make that design tradeoff.

EDIT: Unless, of course, the GDC decides to make it more worth our while... like say... a 2nd SUSPENDED ROBOT is worth a 2x or 3x multiplier to either the hanging stack, or the goals scored.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

Technically, it does not have to be "beefy" to support that kind of weight. There are tradeoffs involved.

I don't think it'll be seen because I don't know how much most teams can be trusted to try and attach themselves to someone else's robot without breaking something. :p The point values don't make it worth it, IMO.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

Back then, there were no bumper rules, no frame perimeter restrictions, and no size limits after the match started. Kickers, super size wheels, and other mechanisms to help teams climb the platform were common.

And a hang was worth 50 points, in matches where most scores were 80-200 points. And if you had a good alliance partner, they could either cap one of your own goals (potentially causing up to a 100+ point increase), uncap the opponents' goal (potentially causing up to a 100+ point swing in your favor), or hang themselves (50 points). There were all single actions, that could have a relatively large swing on the score, which made it easier to deal with one robot being "out of play" because they were on the bar.

Since this year's game is soccer, having a complete alliance to keep scoring is much more important. Having one alliance partner "out of play" (because they are hanging) makes it much more difficult for non-hanging alliance partners to do their job and continue to score soccer balls. Hanging may actually negatively affect the potential score your alliance could have scored if you have decent kicker robots and kept on just kicking soccer balls, especially if it takes 30-45 seconds to at least get one elevated and one suspended robot, never mind a second suspended robot for the 8-point hang.

At this point, I'm 99.9% sure the GDC will not change the point value of any scored object in the game. Entire robot designs and strategies were all coupled around a specific set of rules. Tweaking these points even slightly would completely destroy some strategies and open up new ones. This would basically waste an entire week of the build season for some teams, if they realized that new point values would make a completely different robot more advantageous. This would cause a massive uproar in the FRC community - "Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!" - which is the last thing FIRST wants right now.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

This was really the point I was getting at. I know we frequently try to do things in a way thats going to provide the least potential for damage to our robot, and having other teams hang off us just seems like asking for trouble.

I tend to agree. GDC is VERY unlikely to change things like this now, lest they unleash the wrath of 1500 teams who've been designing for a week.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

Say whatever you want, but Car Nack has the track record that makes you stand up an take notice.

Having said that, you will not be surprised to discover that I am sure Car Nack's predictions have merit.

Please note that having 2 robots suspended and one robot elevated does not provide +8 points as many have argued!!!

To my way of thinking it provides a mere +2 -- the two robots that go from 2pt elevated to 3 point suspended.

This is a lot of pain for not a lot of benefit. If these +2 points were free or nearly free (in terms of time and risk), that would be one thing but they aren't.

It is quite hard to imagine a situation where 3 robots could configure themselves into an 8 point configuration as quickly and reliably as they could configure themselves in 6 point configuration. Every time I come up with a solution that WOULD provide this advantage, the solution I come up with requires so many resources from the various robots that if they put those same resources into building a robot that does other tasks better, they'd be ahead of the game (by a lot).

Callin' 'em as I sees 'em.

Joe J.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

We estimate that you can become easily elevated in ten seconds or less for two points. But to pull up high enough to allow another robot to suspend from you would take at least another 6-8 seconds. It would take at least as long for another robot to be suspended. A third robot would take forever.

A robot designed to do nothing other than become elevated and then lift up two other robots is possible (and I think some will try it) but the time needed top do it will allow the other alliance to more than make up the 8 points.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

My personal opinion is that the GDC kind of dropped the ball on this one. As Joe points out, the net benefit from SUSPENDING two robots, as opposed to ELEVATING them is only +2. It needed to be worth substantially more than this for teams to see it as being a worthwhile endeavour.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

Does the GDC want every endeavor to be worthwhile? I personally believe they incorporate a certain amount of varying objectives so that teams have to do their own cost benefit analysis.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

bingo!

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

That was certainly the case in the FLL game this year. I suspect those people talk to each other from time to time.

I am envisioning the problem of ensuring that a SUSPENDED robot does not become an ELEVATED robot (or even worse, a hanging robot worth no points). I can think of a theoretical design for the (topmost) ELEVATED robot to accomplish this, but it is quite complex and would probably be weighty. Which might mean that it would be the only thing that robot could reliably accomplish. Worthy tradeoff? Maybe for the "Gee, wow!" factor.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

This is not true. You can very easily support 450 lbs of robots with a very light mechanism.

Re: Car Nack Predicts 2010-1
 

I'm with Cory on this. There are some VERY simple solutions out there that will move an alliance from a +6 bonus to a +8 bonus with very little effort and minimal mass impact. I will be amazed if several teams do not figure it out and make it work at the competitions. I understand Car Nack's concerns on this one. But I am willing to bet (very cautiously, because going against Car Nack is pretty much like spitting into the wind) that Car Nack will be wrong on this one.

-dave


.