Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Since open field "tackling"/"crashes" are permitted this year, has any team designed their robot for that intent? Ever since day five, (not one, because I had a "wall" idea) my idea was just that: a giant wrecking ball. Make it only about 10 inches high and make it out of steel instead of aluminum and use 2 CIMs per side to power the bot. My idea was to make it just heavy enough to pass the weight limit to maximize the force of the impact. Now you see where I am going with this. The top of the chassis would be a steel plate. Pretty much a tank without any weaponry. Very simple and rugged. Now any team doing any similar ideas?

Of course our team is not doing this: we are the generic arm robot that has a 6 second minibot... *sigh*

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Can't any robot with a drivetrain geared for a high and obtainable top speed and a CG low enough to keep from tipping do this?

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Yes, but would it have the intimidation factor of looking like at tank? :D

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

A robot will intimidate after you see it play. Actions speak louder than looks.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

example team 247 from 2005-2011 except 2008, and 2010

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

I would feel bad for any team that thought this was a viable strategy, and showed up to a regional expecting to perform well.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

nobody is going to be intimidated by a robot that can't score. the rules put such a machine at a disadvantage.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

not really...yes we are going to arm but defense is going to be a huge part of this game when you get into a pushing match in mid court you have to be able to get past them if that means pushing them into our scoring zone so be it...just saying defense isnt illegal and going to be huge (even if you cant score pushing them into a zone that they have to swurm out is still an advantage)

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

I believe a good defense is as good as, if not better than, a good offensive bot. Now imagine this: what good is a high scoring bot if it is:
1.) Capsized
2.) Demobilized
3.) Blocked
4.) Broken in general

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

what if they cant stop us ;)

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

I really hope you're not serious. Even if your wrecking ball defense manages to disable every robot on the opposing alliance before they can hang a single logo piece, a score of zero still beats a red card.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

That's an easy one, David.

<G48>: Yellow Card, intentional damaging strategy, first offense. Second offense is a second YC, which is an automatic Red Card.

After the first Red Card, if the team doesn't shape up, the refs can pull a second one. Especially if they've got a yellow card already (<T08>).

Now, up to this point, I've been assuming one thing: The refs haven't called egregious behavior. Under <T09>, the refs can pull a red card out for that without bothering to pull a Yellow Card (though they could also pull a Yellow under <T06>). Plus you get a yellow card going into any subsequent matches.

So, if those robots are damaged like that intentionally, the best you could expect would be one match that counted. So those high-scoring robots are good for getting you lots and lots of red cards, and any scout worth their salt will tell you that any team with lots and lots of red cards will get your entire alliance DQ'd out of eliminations.

Have you knocked them out? Sure. But you won't be picked for eliminations, except by a team that really wants a pile of cards. Worse still, you'll get a reputation. You'll be known as the team that got red cards all event long.

The only thing in that list that you wouldn't get a red card or a yellow card for is a block. And I'm telling you right now, there are teams out there that don't care for blocking robots and will proceed to go around or through you... or worse still, block the blocker.

There was a team that did quite well (pre-required-bumpers) as a defensive robot. Team 4 won two straight Los Angeles Regionals as a defender... but they started both as offense, and changed later to defense when the offense just wasn't there. In both cases, however, they did not play break-em defense. They played smart defense--block, keep someone else from blocking, get in the way, spin the opponent at just the right time to keep them from scoring, all that sort of thing that doesn't damage opponents, but stops them from being very effective at offense.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

i don't think a robot with this intent is really within the spirit of first. this isn't battle-bots.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Agreed. Anyone can make a fast, low CG, heavy robot. That doesn't take any skill.

Be proud of your robot, and if your unhappy with it's performance, ITERATE THE DESIGN!

Withhold what your not happy with and make it better. Kick butt that way, not with a "wrecking ball", no one wants to see that.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Eh, I guess it doesn't apply to FRC then.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

No need to guess. It's in the rules. ::rtm::

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Intentional destruction is blatantly illegal.

Doesn't matter if your bot is steel, your 120 pound robot making legal contact is going to hit exactly as hard as a "normal" robot that also weighs 120 pounds. Just because your robot is dense and steel doesn't somehow make it a better rammer.

Tipping is also illegal if intentional.

Seriously - read the rules. It's week 5.

Re: Wrecking Ball Robots
 

Alan, I think I know what he was referring to.

In football, there is a saying that "Defense wins championships". I know that David does play football, and I would guess that he's heard that saying at least a few times.

However, whoever came up with that saying did not mean a defense that got a personal foul or pass interference penalty every other play. He meant a defense that got a turnover every few plays, particularly at critical points in the game. Say, for example, the SDSM&T defense coming up with a pick-6 in the end zone in second overtime when up by 3 points and their opponent's offense was on the 3. (Too bad the extra 6 points weren't counted.)

To draw a football analogy, the strategy David suggested would be akin to getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, facemask, or tripping penalty by the same person every play he was in the game. How long would that person last in the football game before either the coaches or refs sent him to the showers? (And, in the case of the coaches doing the sending, the practice squad?)