Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

My team just finished our second large brainstorming session, and one of the big debates was whether or not it was worth, and if many teams would attempt, to try to get all three robots on the bridge during eliminations at regionals/districts. It might take a lot of time for an alliance to situate themselves correctly so it is 'balanced,' which might be better used scoring points through baskets.

What do you guys think? Are teams going to design with the idea of being compact for the ramp in mind? What is your team doing? How is you team planning on pulling down the ramp so you can climb up onto it?

Also, is it worth risking the 20 points from 2 robots for either 0 points due to the ramp being unbalanced, or the 40 points due to all 3 robots being on with the ramp balanced?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Hopefully if my idea gets through to people, a weight shifting mechanism.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

It depends on the robots people make. I could say yes, it's necessary, and then watch as everyone makes long robots that don't fit three, or I say it won't happen and there are teams who make small defending robots whose sole purpose is to allow a triple balance in the end. It all depends on what the other people do.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I think personally that three robots is excessive. I believe that an accurate point scoring robot can outweigh the gamble of the bridges.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The difference between two and three robots on the bridge in eliminations is 20 points. In order to exceed that you would have to hit a minimum of 7 top level baskets in the time you were planning on devoting to balancing the ramp. Given the maximum three ball capacity, that involves "reloading" at least twice.

Given an appropriate ball supply (far from a guarantee) and a large enough window to get on the bridges (~30 seconds), it's certainly within the realm of feasibility that some teams could achieve that. But I seriously question whether a vast majority of scoring teams will be able to even come close.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I SAY max 3 baskets per match for most teams. and I mean either the 2 or 1 pointers.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Never thought of it like that. All this calculus is brainwashing me...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I see it being a big risk-big reward part of the game. Sure, we haven't seen any robot balancing yet, but two robots will likely be easier to fit on the ramp, as well as balance on the ramp. Either a team can take the easier feat of balancing with two robots for twenty points, or risk zero or forty points while trying to balance three.
Picking a small robot for the third alliance choice will likely make it easier to fit all the robots on the ramp, but even still, how much room will it be to alter weight? I see some teams that are better at balancing using some mechanism to shift their weight.
Since there is no specific time to begin balancing the ramp, I bet some teams will start maybe at 45 seconds remaining so they may ensure those forty points.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

People just need to get their 2007 robots into the design ideas and start thinking about lifting robots with their robots and then balancing...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Don't all the robots have to be supported by the bridge?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I remember talk in 2010 that said basically this, that people could score enough goals to make hanging useless.

Then we almost didn't build a hanging robot, and if we hadn't, we'd never have won New York. Except for all the 469 matches and some exceptions at the Championship level, hanging was just as important as scoring.

Lesson learned: No matter the end game, it's important, and you shouldn't rule it out.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

If I was a high seeded alliance and was on my second pick (already having a second great robot). I would defiantly look at my options and probably take a small compact robot that can play defense and allow me to gain 20 bridge points over a bad shooting robot with no chance of gain the bridge points. At the end of the match you make a few decisions. Do you have the small robot and the worse of the 2 shooters go for the guaranteed 20 points and have 1 person shoot the last baskets? or do you take the risk and go for 40? For me I would look at your score, their score, and if they can put 3 robots on the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

find the rule that says that I can't seem to find it...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Does it break the bumper rules if you extend a leg down to balance the bridge and support yourself if you were on it but hanging off the edge? I'm not clear on that.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

You are allowed to extend up to 14 inches beyond the frame perimeter...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

That's for outward protrusions. Can you extend downward?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

thats a good question for the Q&A

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

That is true. I was hoping someone had figured it out, but I also forgot that CD is not the GDC. (Otherwise we'd be better at getting the game hints! ;))

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Extremely high complexity resulting in limited value.
To get points? Yes. And balanced.
Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Maybe he didn't understand what I meant or you didn't but i mean to put a robot on another robot and then get on the bridge and have it balance. As for him I think he wants to know if my idea is against the rules but I don't see where it says that you can't.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

We do not have a Ramp yet to test balance but what about getting creative. Three robots could fit easier under an angled configuration...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

quote:Lesson learned: No matter the end game, it's important, and you shouldn't rule it out. - ninja bait


I agree. My team won two regionals last year, partly because of programming and good alliances. But the real reason we won was our minibot, which was lightning fast and easy to deploy. It is important to play the game right, but the endgame is where the match is decided, and especially with a 20 point difference in elims, it is gonna be really important, especially once people get through the first two regionals.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

(emphasis mine) I see the "must be balanced" rule for the alliance bridge (G40), but where's the "must be supported" rule? It's mentioned in G41 w.r.t. the coopertition bridge if that bridge isn't balanced. No where I can find does "balancing" either type of bridge required any robot to be "fully supported" by said bridge. Did I miss a definition or something somewhere?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The intent of G41 is clearly to prevent robots from claiming coopertition points by driving up the bridge halfway but still be half on the carpet. G41 doesn't even prevent another robot from going to the coopertition bridge to aid balancing (obviously, as long as it doesn't break other rules) by supporting the bridge itself. I think aided balancing is a perfectly valid strategy.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Yeah, I dont know what prevents you from taking the 111 approach in 2001...

Seems ok

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I am not super familiar with 2007, my rookie year was 2009. If I have two ramps, supporting two robots, will I still be able to drive up the bridge, or am I pretty much stationary? Also, on 111 in 2001, robots drove ovr their entire robot. A similar bot this year would seem impos--, sorry, improbable if you wanted to be able to shoot basketballs.

Any hints on how to build these ramps?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The initial portion of your ramp could only extend 14" beyond your frame perimeter. Given the more flexible bumper rules this season, it's definitely possible, but not nearly as easy with the size limitations. Your ramp would either have to be much narrower or much steeper to co-exist with the bumper and extension limits.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

If a team decides to go like 111 in 2001 does that still count if the bridge is balanced? I thought the rule said that the bridge must fully support all the robots. I think it should be fine but I'd just like to check.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Bridge supports Robot 1.
Robot 1 supports Robot 2.
Bridge supports Robot 2 by transitivity.

Alternatively:

Robot 2
^
Robot 1
^
Bridge


therefore,

Robot 2
^
Bridge

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The only mention in the rules of robots being supported by bridges is when the coopertition bridge is NOT balanced. A balanced bridge is balanced and scores points whether or not a robot is fully supported on it, at least with the ambiguous rules we have now. Read the manual, and expect clarification in the Team Update tomorrow.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I just quickly re-read the manual and did see anything that would prevent you from having an appendage Cling to a robot to help with balancing the bridge?

Reason for edit: iPads auto correct is a pain in the butt.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

When I made the remark about 111 in 2001 it was more for getting 2 robots on one bridge.

Your entire robot would be a ramp(so a maximum 42 inches long x 1 foot tall....not steep at all) holding the bridge firm. Robots drive on you onto the bridge, and the bridge still remains balanced, regardless of their position. In Qualifications you would always guarantee a 20 point bonus, and in eliminations you could attempt to back off and hop on the bridge as well for 40...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

i really don't know how the scoring will go down this year... it's hard to imagine scores going over 100... at least not without the 40 point, 3 robot balance... but you never know what teams will be capable of.

i'd be surprised if teams didn't go for the 3 robot balance in eliminations, unless it was really difficult and virtually no one was able to fit all 3 robots on there. hopefully there will be a few teams who build a wide drive bot specifically for that purpose. they might go early in the alliance selections, depending on the number of points put on the board during qualifications... and the scarcity of wide drive robots.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

We've been thinking for that a lot... considering either having a 30" by 27" robot or a 37" by 27" robot and basically maxing out the dimensions we could have to make for a sturdier drive base. Now, the question comes... what benefits do we have?...we eventually compromised with a 34" by 27" robot...Thoughts?


Keep in mind that the bridge will stay balanced based on the center of gravity of each robot. No matter how long your robot is, you can play around with the center of gravity to balance robots, even though they hang over the edge of the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I beg to differ...
:D

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

If the current rules are not changed in a team update (which I expect they will be), whats stopping teams from sitting on the carpet and extending a 13 inch arm that touches the top of the alliance bridge to get balanced alliance bridge points?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Or a robot could be built with a sturdy flat deck 11" high and side rails and position itself just an inch or so under edge of the bridge. Partner bot could drive up the other side of bridge which would lower onto low bot deck and partner could carefully drive onto deck of low bot (which could latch onto top bot, back up, lower bridge and drive up and position itself just past fulcrum). This assumes the top bot has a reasonably lower center of gravity itself and both are skilled drivers ;) Lowbot contributes 10 each match in quals and 20 in elims...not bad for a team contribution. Not 987's cup of tea but could be option for others:D

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

the only thing the rules say about downward protrusions is this:
Based on my interpretation, this rule counts all vertical projections. A person can increase their height by putting on platform shoes (projecting downwards), or by putting on a tall hat (projecting upwards). The same goes for a robot. So, be mindful of which carpet you're touching and the total height of your robot (including the downward projection) if you're going to try this!

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The question is, would a downward protrusion mean your bumper height has been raised?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I think that if you take into account how much you can improve your overall scoring and adjust the 20 bonus points for your probable rate of success depending of course on the robot you will find that in many cases going for the 3 robot bridge is not the right move.

Ironically it was the brutal post match hang of 67 and the in match hang of some other team that's been to einstein a few times over the last couple of years, that did in 469 in the end.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

After a few quick calculations, it would appear the to get three robots to be supported by the bridge, regardless of balancing (and assuming a requirement that the outermost wheel should be at or inside the edge of the ramp, and that wheel center is 4" from the edge of the bot), The average robot dimension would have to be less than 27". That would mean three 27" bots, or one 10" bot and two 35 1/2" bot etc. I see an excellent opportunity for a team to build a tiny bot with the sole intent of being a third pick. Any bot that can guarantee 20 bonus points would be a likely pick for the elims.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The idea is very interesting, in the rules it says that the robot must be balanced on the bridge. It would be balenced on the ground, yet still in terms "on" the bridge.::rtm::
Niot sure honestly if you could do it, should ask the Q and A when it opens if the majority of the robot need to be on the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Mini-bots return!

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Yes, they would have won the Championship without the hangs, but that was not the single reason they lost that match. On Einstein, one misstep will kill your chances - it's all about perfection.

67 had a perfect hanger, but 469 had a near perfect robot. Better is always the enemy of good enough, isn't it.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

That's not exactly what I was getting at. G40 says that robot(s) get points for being on a balanced bridge, which section 2.2.5 defines as within 5 degrees of horizontal. Unless I'm missing it, the rules never say the robot needs to be completely on or supported by the alliance bridge.

The question becomes is a robot that has an appendage resting on top of the bridge considered 'on the bridge'?

I think the answer is yes which should result in a rule change in the next update.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The rule book also says this year not to rule lawyer and go with the intent of the rule.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Not quite the design I was envisioning or talking about, but I get the concept you're going for and it's a valid point. I was more envisioning a 111-style "gatekeeper" ramp that allowed other teams to drive over them and onto the ramp without it ever having to be unbalanced. Not so much a team that supported another robot on the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

What is the intent of the rules, though? We're confused on both intent and implication, unfortunately, and we will have to put many of the thoughts on this thread through the official Q&A

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

If I were to say that I was balanced on a balance beam. Would you picture standing on the floor, touching the balance beam? Or would you picture me standing on top of the balance beam?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

To be fair, they say that every year. The line between lawyering the rules and creative thinking is VERY vague at times.

I would think that using a leg of some sort would still be risky in any case as the weight of an 120 pound robot would be on it :\

EDIT: No good, rule update shot this one down.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Trying to get 3 robots on the same bridge at the same time AND balanced seems a monumental task. First, at least one of the 3, if not all, would have to be designed to "fit together" on the bridge. Secondly, they would have to cooperate to a high degree to do that, AND balance themselves. Third, it would take at least a minute, probably more, to get this done... which means you'd have to forgo most of the ball-shooting part of the competition. At that point, you've put all your eggs in one basket, and, if you fail, you could end up with just about zero pts!!

I'm wondering if there is some larger purpose to this to make ALL regional teams cooperate DURING the design/build process??

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Personally I think a great strategy for a rookie team would be to design a very short light weight robot that others could drive on top of. During qualification rounds you could pick up a competitor and always get 2 coopertition points, and then in the elimination rounds it would make balancing 3 easier. I'd love to see a team win it all never shooting a basketball :)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

One would imagine it will not even be attempted, but considering the massive points at stake I wouldn't count anything out yet. The FIRST community has surprised me every year thus far. I don't expect this season to buck the trend.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

In 2007 we mentored a rookie team (2250). We helped them design and build a very small ramp bot. If the alliance had a ramp it could climb it and score 30 points. They ended up being the eight seed. A similar bot this year could do even better. Here's a video of the bot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtD8v..._order&list=UL It became known as 'mini me' for obvious reasons.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

We talk about how difficult it would be to get three robots on the ramp because of the cooperation involved, but have you considered the difficulty inherent in said cooperation? If you look at the field designs, you'll notice that one team on each alliance will be removed from the other two.

In other words, if you planned on being able to talk to each other with ease during this balancing period, think again. One team will have to be shouted to over whatever other din fills the competition area, quite a lot, if I'm familiar with FRC regionals.

A monumental task has been made even more difficult with the sequestering of 1/3 of the alliance; in my opinion, a 3 robot balance is not only difficult, it's nigh impossible. I don't think that it's worth the effort to balance three robots, but two might be worth planning and practicing for.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

O. It is not impossible ;)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Not really. The teams can still coordinate in the pits before the match to settle how it will work out. Alliances already commonly meet before each match, having "opponents" do the same isn't a huge leap.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I totally agree with you about the pre-game meeting between opponents. I personally don't see there being any teams until at least state, maybe even until nationals that either A. attempt getting 3 bots on a bridge. or B. are succesful at getting 3 robots on.
I can't imagine seeing more than one time when all 3 bots balance, let alone fit, on the bridge at once.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

True, and frankly at most competitions didn't see four minibots until States last year as well. I'm really interested to see though if this task is really as hard as it sounds. Without a whole lot of testing it just seems early to call it out yet :)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Here is something to think about. The bumpers are about 3.5" thick, so two bumpers adds 7" to the length or width of a robot. Most wheels are going to be mounted at least two to three inches inside the bumpers. So, you can have a wheel right on the edge of a bridge and have the frame and bumper overhang for 5.5 to 6.5 inches on each side. The bridge is 88" long. Subtract 14" for the bumpers of the robots touching each other and you get 74". Add back in the 4" for the distance from the wheel to the frame edge and you get 78". Divide by 3 and you get 26". Three robots with 26" wide frames and that can move sideways (crab drive, mechanum drive) would be able to fit on the bridge. If the center of the whells are more than 2" in from the frame, then you could go with a slightly wider frame.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

BenjDragon: You don't happen to know off hand the width of the bridge do you (as in 88" by what)?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. For reference, the bridges are 88" long by 48" wide.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

A fellow mentor and I were looking at this problem on a scale model field. it is completely possible to put 3 robots on, the trick is about the process of actually getting them on. teams that would wish to be able to easily do this would need more advanced drivetrains and drivebases (nona, mecanum, wide drive, emperor swerve). it would also require extreme communication between driveteams.
Some people are saying that the chances of seeing 3 robots on a ramp is kind of like seeing a robot hang off of another hanging robot in 2010.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I don't think that my last comment was totally understood. Imagine trying to move a bookcase down some stairs with two other people. One person is lowest down the stairs, the other person is highest, and the person in the middle is trying to keep the whole thing from tipping. Now imagine trying to do this with one of those people with their mouth and ears taped shut. That's what balancing the robots is going to be like.

It doesn't matter how much you talk about it before the match, there is going to be a lot of minor adjustments made after you get the robots on the ramp, much like moving a heavy object, and not being able to communicate easily with all parties involved is going to make that difficult.

Of course you should talk with your alliance partners before the match about how each robot will be oriented on the ramp should you go for the three robot balance. The problem is going to be the actually doing the balancing.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I have to respectfully disagree with this.
If we think back 5 years to the ramps... one robot was getting set up for the lift before the other robots... at the very end the other two robots would rush to climb the ramps...

This year a single robot could be preparing the ramp... perhaps holding it up on one end while on the ramp... the other robots would only need to climb onto the ramp and then the prep robot would let go and do any balancing necessary ...(in fact, given the inherent stability of this particular ramp...(videos show that a 28 lb load 22 inches from the fulcrum still balances the bridge...) I think that the balancing portion will be fairly easy...

I think a balance in this situation is definitely doable in 5-10 seconds (after a robot has prepped the bridge...

So the scenario would be: one robot travels to the bridge (alliance side) while its partners are taking their last shots on the scoring side. The prep robot climbs on... lifts the bridge underneath it (somehow)...and the bridge is tipped to the scoring side... 10 seconds to go... the other robots run to the ramp...climb on... the prep robot takes out the support... and

BAZINGA!!!! 40 points...

also remember that the rules committee is ALREADY thinking about adding points at CMP...and the points are PER ROBOT...so with a 5 point boost at CMP PER ROBOT.... that would mean a 55 point balance score for 3 ...
with the max swing of points... it would mean 15 PER ROBOT.... or 85 points for a 3 robot balance...

think about it...

The "prep" robot can be practicing the entire time... even during the qualifying rounds by using this method to get cooperation points..or regular ramp points.... the other alliance robots only have to drive up the ramp so ANY robot on the field should be able to do that...

REMEMBER
We were told that to win this competition we would have to cooperate...
Is this the GDC's way of rewarding cooperation during eliminations? I think so.. and the higher the competition... the more value for the cooperation...

CMP would showcase coopertition and cooperation within an alliance during elimination...

hmmmmmm

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Yeah, let me know if you get a response on Q&A. I was wondering about this also :)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Eh, not quite. In 2010, robots had to be built in a way that would allow someone else to hang on them, while correctly predicting the hanging apparatus of their teammates. There are a ton of unknown variables there.

This year that isn't quite as true. Most bots can be predicted to be roughly 120 lbs (its strategically a good reason to aim for the weight limit even if you don't need to otherwise), they have set size parameters that many people will probably fit, and only one robot technically has to be able to drop the ramp so to speak. This invites a lot more potential then 2010.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Wouldn't that be violating G27 since it would be "deliberate... contact with an opponent robot inside its frame perimeter..." and don't both robots have to be supported by the bridge for it to counted as balanced?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Correct

You won't get points for having someone on top of you, but you can still get automatic coopertition points by just climbing onto the ramp and dropping the side for your opponent. Carrying them is not necessary.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Why would you not get points for having someone on top of you?
It says fully supported by the ramp, not solely supported by the ramp. If a robot is on top of another, then they are both supported fully by the ramp.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

My fellow mentor and I were just kicking the 3 on a bridge idea around at the office, and with the new bumper rules you should be able to buy back 6 inches of play.

If we can convince everyone to only put the minimum bumper on their wide sides, then you can stagger your robots on the bridge such that the bumpers will nestle inside each other. If two robots nestle into the middle robot then that is 6 more inches of play, keeping you from falling off the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

See update here.
It says the robot must be completely supported by the bridge to be scored.

If you're saying that completely also allows you to ride another robot, I think you might just be overthinking this. I mean by that logic, being completely supported by the bridge would be impossible, because you're really just being supported by the carpet, the floor, the foundation, the earth, ad nauseum.

They might come out with a further confirmation either way, but for now I would avoid overthinking this too much.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Think of it this way, if you have cargo in a truck while going over a bridge. What is holding supporting the cargo over the water? Sure its in the truck but the bridge is fully supporting the cargo above the water.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Definition of support: Bear all or part of the weight of; hold up.

If a robot is on top of the other, the bridge is still bearing all the weight of them both.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

2008 showed that it could obviously be done. 148 won the championship without ever picking up a trackball. They picked an easy strategy that many others overlooked and they did well in executing it.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

57 actually came up with this idea when we were sketching out the plan of our robot and we had all this unused space in front of our shooter/conveyor tower. Since we seem incapable of passing up a crazy ramp scheme, we'll be investigating the feasibility of this scheme this weekend. From our point of view, there's little downside, since all it costs us is a little weight and cramming our electronics under that deck.

Now to ask the GDC if we could apply for a waiver on <G27> on ourselves, since balancing the coopertition bridge would be so much easier with an opponent robot on top of us.....

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Just an idea...

You could design a 6-wheeled robot where a majority of the weight is towards one end of the robot. So long as the heavier end is on the bridge supported by 4 of the wheels, the lighter end and the other 2 wheels should be able to cantilever over the end without pulling the robot off--same reasoning why 2 wheels of a drop-center 6-wheeled bot are always off the ground.

With 2 robots set up this way and a third turned sideways in the middle, it should work. Another point to help this idea: make sure your bridge-lowering device is mounted on the heavy end.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Teams are generally going to have some sort of appendage that will lower the bridges. If they make them heavy duty enough they can use it to help keep a 3rd robot on the bridge while it is hanging over the edge of the bridge.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Im in charge of electronics for the sf rookie team and we arent making anything that could shoot balls. were trying to make a compact robot but my electrical layout takes up like 28 inches. would it be possible to make the electric board vertical? (but we also want our bot to pick up and shoot balls just to the other side of the court)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Sure, we've done vertical boards in the past if the CG stays reasonable. It's just gravity--no big. ;)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

And they got picked by 1114 and 217...
Note: I am not picking on 148.. they had a very cool and unique robot ...good autonomous.... without them the other teams would not have won either...

but it takes an alliance to win the championship...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Good point, but... the first robot on the bridge, assuming all 3 are on the same side of the court, would need it's "push down" arm mounted on the "light" end, since that's what will be hanging off the other end of the bridge... the last robot on would have to have the arm on the heavy end. This brings up another obvious problem: with two robots already on, and the middle one somehow turned sideways, the third robot on would have to push down the bridge with the combined weight of 2 robots on it.... as I said previously, this is an ALMOST impossible maneuver! Plus, it will take a lot of time to do all this and if the 3rd robot can't get on, no one will score any points since the bridge will not be balanced!! Good luck with this one!!

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I think winning the Championship requires a bucketful of luck anyways, so it's hard to gauge how much your robot strategy played into it. Perhaps a better vindication of their strategy was their 1st seed and regional championship at the St. Louise regional, as well as their finalist finish in Bayou. I think the easy strategy is often overlooked, 58 built a super simple robot that took them to finalists at BAE in 2008 as well, and last year 3467 built a rock solid minibot deployer and bottom row tube scorer that left them in picking position at BAE.

Back to your regularly scheduled ramp balancing discussion...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I've been searching the official Q&A can anyone confirm/deny that a robot that is on top of another robot balanced on the bridge is considered "fully supported" by the bridge. So in Quals 1 robot on a robot on a balanced bridge=20 points?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

To elaborate on your idea, what if the mechanism had an adjustable hook or piece of C-channel that could go around a bumper. That way the middle robot could "lock" with the other robots preventing either from tipping off. I like using the bumper because with the rules, we know where robots will have them roughly.

Perhaps it just needs to be a plate that is over the bumper.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I feel as if the "simple strategy" won't cut it this year. A widebot and a widebot with a shooter walk into a regional... if the widebot with the shooter works and balances as well as the widebot without one that can balance well, what's an alliance captain going to go with? Not to mention the Coopertition bridge has everyone smacking their heads in disbelief. This is a weird variable that has no real historical evidence to help strategists predict what to do. (History would say that in some regional qualifiers, teams will be pushing opposing dead-in-the-water robots because they need the points, and wind up humiliating the pushed bot)

I will say that while the endgame this year is harder than Logomotion's (I feel confident in saying that teams that looked for the answer, found it and gave it to other teams), the points you can earn will make up a high percentage of the overall match points.

The GDC feels confident that accurate scorers will be making it to eliminations, which is why they added the bonus for the difficult balancing act.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Definition of support: Bear all or part of the weight of; hold up.

If a robot is on top of the other, the bridge is still bearing all the weight of them both.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

My team is designing a robot hat can turn sideways on the bridge, that way it would allow for all the robots. We also going to have pneumatic rams that slide out and grab another robot to hold them on if there isn't enough room. That way they don't fall off.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Just remember that you can only have one ram that come outside of your frame.

G21-Robots may extend one appendage up to 14 in. beyond a single edge of their frame perimeter at any time.
Violation: Foul for exceeding size allotments; Technical-Foul for continuous or repeated violations. (These appendages are intended for use in manipulating Basketballs and/or Bridges. A Robot may have multiple extension devices onboard, but only one may be deployed at a given time.)

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I'm assuming you will be turning sideways with a robot on the other end of the ramp WHILE you're turning? will you turn first, have a robot get on one end, then the other from the other end? if so, how do you expect the third robot to overcome the opposing weight of the two robots already on the bridge?? Seems impossible to me! Good luck!

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

At regionals, we'd be particularly arrogant to think 1 robot can outscore a 3rd balancing robot, even in 30 seconds. Even if no single robot specializes in a triple balance on an alliance, it doesn't mean it's not worth the effort to try.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Our regional event judge said yes, a downward protrusion to lift a robot's wheel off the ground would be in violation of the no articulated bumper rules. The rule applies to movement of the bumper in relation to the ground, not (just) in relation to the frame or wheels. It also does not matter if the bumpers stay in the bumper zone, it is the movement of the bumpers that violates the rule.

I submitted a q&a question to verify, but no one else in the room, most with more experience then me, questioned his interpretation.

Now, if your wheel stays in contact with the arena, carpet or barrier or bridge surface, then you're ok but then that isn't what a downward protrusion would be doing.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

There was a Q&A that said it was legal, but the question wasn't in relation to the "change" in bumper height... So asking it in terms of changing the bumper height is a good idea...

I personally don't see how it is articulating the bumpers as the bumpers are rigidly attached you aren't moving the bumpers you are moving something else. But I'm not on the GDC so my opinion doesn't really matter... also as long as the bumpers stay in the bumper zone why should it matter....

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

This would be true -- if FRC teams were as good as building robots as everyone assumes. The truth of the matter is that teams do not score many points, and by building a simple robot that you can get working, you can often significantly outperform the mean.

Take for example this distribution of OPR in 2011 from Jim Zondag. OPR uses matrix math to approximate the points a robot is worth in a match. Because of how the math works, the true distribution is probably even more skewed!


In 2011, the mean robot scored about 11.3 points/match, but the median (or 50% robot) scored significantly fewer... somewhere around 5.

I would be willing to bet a widebot that is good at balancing the ramp and does not get penalties is worth more than the 50 percentile shooter. In 2011 a consistent minibot would've put you well above 75% percentile by OPR. I don't have 2010 nationwide OPR distribution, but seeing as a consistent hang would put you above the mean robot score (2 pts vs 1.4), that would also put you well above the 50% percentile scoring robot as well.

Building a good robot is harder than most people think. :o

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I agree with you. But our judge said he wasn't making the call based on this year's rules, but rather on consistent direction from FIRST over the years of what articulated bumper means. He said they could make an exception via a team update, but I haven't seen it yet.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The ONLY person you should be listening to in these matters is your Lead Robot Inspector and FIRST HQ.

I don't know what you mean exactly by regional event judge, but if they are not one of the two above people, they may not be a good source of information.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Our approach for being the "third bot on the bridge" is to drive up the rail edge with only ~14" of our bot's width (bumper included) above the bridge, and ~19" of our width hanging off the side of the bridge. Most full size bots can still drive past us.

We plan to tilt the center bridge for balls in autonomous, shoot out our preloads, head for our bridge. After autonomous ends, we tilt our bridge for balls and then go over it to play defense. We can shoot balls full court from a spot parked in front of return slot. Near end, we plan to be first bot on bridge and to bring it down for our partners who can, rolling bumper-to-bumper, just drive right past us up to the balance position. They can both stay near center of bridge as we hang off side and near center enough to balance it with them. No ball pickup from floor yet, and this seems like an essential for us to really do well.

-Dick Ledford