Re: Team Update #18
 

74 already did that. They had a minibot score, then it went down to the base and back up to hit the trigger plate again.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I'm not sure you can say that without watching all of their matches and figuring out how many points they scored on tubes each match and then averaging them. I'm all for using statistics, but they must be reported properly. I'm not sure ERC (or opr) supports that statement.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think considering both had a double cap, and were both powerhouses on the rack, 33 points as a guesstimate is pretty fair. Also I think I am safe to say what separates 1114 from 148 is their minibot.

that being said I think you are right. I shouldn't have stated that they average that, I should have said that I estimate it. just so everyone know the E in ERC stands for estimated. Sometimes I forget to argue that these numbers are rough estimates. I chose 148 and 1114 specifically because of their reputation right now.

Re: Team Update #18
 

At Chesapeake, the only bot I saw touch the plate and not trigger the tower were slow minibots that either didn't exert the required force or ran out of time (I am not sure which was the case).

There was a case in QF 2-1 where our Minibot was the the first to reach the top but the lights on the tower turned off. The rest of the towers lit up with 4 lights, 3 and 2 when the next 3 minibots hit. We still got the 30 pts for first so I guess they looked at the triggers in FMS and the lights just malfunctioned.

Re: Team Update #18
 

If the tower lights turned off (as opposed to continuing to cycle up and down), that means the tower was disabled. Apparently the referees later determined they were incorrect to do so.

EDIT: Or, there was a major malfunction of the tower.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Thats what I thought initially but I was told that wasn't the case. I am really not sure.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I believe it was the very last elimination match when the minibot didn't trigger the tower. The thing is far too small to hit the bolts, and the switch on the top of the minibot that turns it off takes more force to depress than the limit switches on the tower. (Earlier in the day, we found out that if one of those minibots hit a tower with a hard stop instead of the cushion of the moving ones used in matches, the minibot will actually separate from the tower from the force of impact and go flying. I got a fun little cut on my finger from catching "Marvin" when he decided he wanted to try his hand at flying off the tower.)

Of all the matches that one of the 1868 minibots went up, that was the only time it didn't trigger a tower.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Well, if we're getting to that level of lawyering the rules, there's no official definition for PUSH in the rules. There's clearly a force being applied to the bottom disk in order to TRIGGER the sensors on the TOWER. In 7th grade I learned that a force was a PUSH or a PULL. So, by that logic, shoving the bottom of the tower should count.

Or we can use commons sense... :rolleyes:

The difference in 2008 is that FIRST told us what the lines would be made out of, where they would be located, and how that rule would be officiated from week one. The lines never changed nor malfunctioned during the season. Any penalties incurred because of them was the result of the actions of the teams on the field, not because of mystery forces created by field elements that were never fully explained to teams.

You're missing his point. BOTH alliances will have robots like 148 and 1114. While the points scored by 1114 could offset a minibot if the opponent isn't scoring tubes, it's not going to offset the scoring from 148 AND 148's minibot.

There's a definite potential for the tube scores for both alliances to be both incredibly high, and incredibly close. That's where minibots are going to decide matches. It's not going to be a case where those 50 points alone are going to overcome the opponents scoring, but those 25 extra points from getting 1st and 2nd in the minibot race would easily offset the 2 extra tubes the opponent scored more than your alliance did.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Your interpretation of the bolts is correct, and that issue has already been brought up. But there are other instances that cannot be explained by hitting the bolts (as certain minibots designs cannot hit the bolts and there have been cases where these minibots didn't trigger the tower).

Re: Team Update #18
 

There were not very many deployed minibots at Arizona. I saw two times the towers didn't trigger. In one case (forgot the team number) the minibot clearly hit the bolts and did not move the plate. In the second case, 842s minibot clearly moved the plate, but it's impossible to say if it moved it the full amount. It did not affect the match result.

Re: Team Update #18
 

If a minibot does stick out far enough from the pole there is definitely potential for it to hit a bolt. That's definitely something teams should take into consideration as something to design around.

This is based on my personal observations of the field.

Re: Team Update #18
 

In your scenario, bumping the base causes the pole to move, and as the structure sways, the target's guide bolts exert a force on the bottom plate of the target. When the pole springs back, the momentum of the bottom plate trips the sensors. So yes, something pushed on the bottom plate, and so the definition of triggered was satisfied.

But where's the minibot? Per <G67>, zero points are awarded, because it wasn't a minibot pushing on the bottom plate that triggered the tower.

Even worse, because something else triggered the tower, the minibot race is over on that tower (per the definition), and no minibots can score. (<G20-B> supports this interpretation.)

Re: Team Update #18
 

Chris told me it came from Duluth

:confused:

Re: Team Update #18
 

That also matches the Truck Schedule posted in the Field Supervisor forum. The San Diego field is listed as going to Sacramento this past weekend.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Arizona was red