[Rickertsen2]

You could create tables of absolute joystick position vs rpm. There would be such tables to indicate when to upshift and tables to show when to downshift. This is how the shifting works in many cars.

The tables would basically say "if you are at 10% joystick, wait till x rpm to upshift" or "if you are at 30% joystick wait till y rpm to downshift. The tables would be setup so that at higher throttle, shifts occur sooner. At lower throttle, when you don't need the extra torque shifts would occur later. There would be some hysteresis in the system. The upshift and downshift points for each gear would differ to avoid excessive shifting. Perhaps an override in the form of a "low" switch could be provided for pushing matches or percision maneuvers.

The approach would obviously necessitate some means of measuring rpm.

I think that you could draw a parallel between racecars and FIRST Robots. For the same reason you don't see automatic racecars i don't know that it would necessarily be and advantage to have an automatic FIRST robot. One of the things that makes a good robot is predictibility. When you shift the chanracteristics of the robot change. If they change when you don't want them to, the robot is less predictible. I think that a well trained driver may be better than an automatic shifting algorithm. Once you get used to a manual, its not hard. I've never driven a FIRST robot with a shifter but i would assume that applies to robots as well.