[asid61]

Originally Posted by Thad House

This year, we had 6 Cims on our drive. During competition season, we were geared for 10.5 fps. With the wheels we had, this was traction limited, and we never got even close to popping breakers. But once we got to the highest level of competition at worlds, we were too slow to be competetive. We switched to 16FPS at IRI. The speeds with this actually allowed us to be competitive with the rest of the field. But in eliminations when our driver was playing rougher defense, we did pop breakers.

I would argue that with 6 Cims, the optimal points are about 10FPS for the low speed, and 16+fps for the high speed. With a 6 Cim drive, 10FPS will allow you to get around your half of the field basically as fast as possible, yet still allow you to not get in trouble with defense. Then if you need to cross the field, or the defender is faster then you, you can shift up to 16+fps and get across field very quickly.

If the field is split like 2010 or 2012, I would argue that a single speed 6 Cim 10 fps robot is the best you can get, because there is not enough room to use any higher of speed. For years like 2011, 2013 and 2014, you want to be able to shift up for extra speed to cross the field quickly. Those are the types of years shifter are useful, because they allow cross field travel faster.

I have to disagree with 6 cim single speed 10fps. You get a maximum of a few hundreths of a second less time to get to a point versus 4 cims, regardless of the distance. If you're gearing for 10fps, I would definitely just use a 4 cim drive.

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

I don't understand this, there are numerous factors as to whether a team wins or not, and I doubt shifting is a major one.

I would hesitate to use wins/losses as evidence to back up certain points, mainly because correlation is not causation.

As a counterexample to your counterexample, 610 in 2013 was extremely competitive to the point that they took home the Championship. They also only used one speed - I recommend looking up their philosophy on that, I believe Mr. Lim and Mr. Rob Stehlik have some in-depth posts about it. Back to my point, personally while I thought they had a very good robot, I would not attribute the win to them having the single best robot on the field, but rather to 1241, 1477, and 610's capability to play as an alliance instead of playing as three teams.

I still believe one choice is not inherently better than another, both have benefits and drawbacks, and it just depends on the game or team preference.

My example was actually to show that having a shifter isn't uncompetitive, although it's rather rather unnecesary. I wonder how many shifters were on Einstein these past years? That would provide more usable data.