Go to Post Engineering is all about trade offs. You can design yor system to do A, B or C easily. Combining A abd C or A and B or B and C requires some effort. Combining A, B and C should be near impossible. - Mike Betts [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 15:55
Don's Avatar
Don Don is offline
Registered User
#0288 (the RoboDawgs)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Grandville, Michigan
Posts: 92
Don is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Don
I'm writing this, because our team's traction buster does something similar to this forklift. We don't use ours recklessly whenever we just want to move a robot. We generally only use it to manipulate a robot attached to a goal. It's simply an effective way to manipulate a robot. And is it really so terrible? We haven't hurt anyone using it so far. To me it seems like it would cause less dents and burnt motors than just bashing head on with another robot.
I'm interested in hearing the opinions of other teams on these mechanims. Especially the teams that don't like them. I'm interested in hearing why.
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 16:59
Ben Mitchell Ben Mitchell is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Bridgewater, NJ
Posts: 566
Ben Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute
Thumbs down

Wow, I’m going to make some new enemies with this post, which is fine by me, I need some new ones anyway. Here it goes, brace thyselves:


#1: XRaVeNX

Claws that grab opposing robot's structure: What if these claws, in the finals, hit a pneumatics line, basically crippling the other alliance? Non intentional, of course, but in effect taking away their chances, if a key robot was the one you disabled. Don’t give me the "there shouldn’t be a weakest link" story, either. You are taking a major risk, and an error could take out the opposing team, permanently.

#2 tinyfarnsworth (again!)

QUOTE BY tinyfarnsworth: “our ideas as a ROOKIE TEAM that could not spend more that 400$ on our robot made simple and effective use of our robot.” END QUOTE

Would'nt a hook to grab a claw be MUCH easier? You guys went OUT OF YOUR WAY to use other robots as game pieces, which I feel is completely against the spirit of FIRST. The chances of your team, ANY team that lifts other robots to damage other robots is far greater than normal play. Gambling with other people's time, money, and resources like that is irresponsible, you could put a team out of a competition, and THEIR 6 weeks would be meaningless, in terms of recognition at the competition. FIRST was not meant to be like Battlebots, but with folks like you, we’ll have Carmen Electra at the Nat’s’ in not time, thanks a lot.

#3 Jnadke (becoming like the chapter names of Catch-22, here)

QUOTED FROM Jnadke: “They purposely added the lifting clause because they wanted a team to do it. As long as you "Handle with care," they'll let you do it. If you drop the robot, you get disqualified. “

So, if the team that gets lifted gets damaged, then they get compensated. DQ gives that team 3 times their own points...” UNQUOTE

Number 1, who are they, and WHY do they WANT you to do this? And why have'nt I met these mysterious people that think risking another teams robot, that you didnt build, to be encouraged and praised? ANSWER THAT?? or can you...?

Number 2, sure, you get DQ’ed, and if the opposing alliances robot is permanently out of the competition, these points are going to do them real good…as they sit in the bleachers. The risk is their, and by gambling, you jeopardize those you play with in an irresponsible manner.


QUOTED FROM Joel Glidden

”IMHO, forklifting other robots (safely) IS a very elegant solution to score points. There are three point scoring resources on the field; goals, balls, and the robots themselves. The great majority of teams have completely ignored the 40 point differential and host of added strategical benefits that come along with forklifting opponent robots.

I don't think this tactic comes anywhere near violating 'gracious professionalism' or the spirit of FIRST if done in a non-damaging manner. I think that perhaps some react to it with hostility because they fear and envy such a potentialy powerful tactic.”


#4 That’s wonderful, disabling other robots is a very elegant solution, that’s what first is all about. The board of director would never be happier seeing 2 robots lifting up the other 2 and running into their endzone. As for strategic benefits, of course, by taking out ½ the opposing team, you’ll get major benefits. (and I didn’t even have to whip out my calculator for that one, har har har!)


I think George180’s got the idea: This sort of thing IS frowned upon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if relations between fork lifting teams, and other teams suffer.

This all reminds me about 2 years ago, when 303 (decent machine) bashed Chief Delphi (awesome machine) at the J&J Mid Atlantic. I wasn’t on the team at the time, but Delphi’s never been back. Too bad, their robot’s are always awesome. Perhaps someone who was there can tell you more. I only watched a video of it, and I cringed, I BECAME ASHAMED OF MY 303 SHIRT, after watching that video.

If your going to play FIRST the way it was meant to be played, good, we want you here. If you’re going to turn it into Battlebots, play that instead. Using other team’s robots I find to be immoral to the spirit of FIRST, and distasteful as a 2nd year FIRSTer. Play the game nicely, get some balls (pun intended) grab some goals, and give the audience a show. I would take no pride in a robot that wins by disabling others. It is in no way, shape, or form, and elegant solution.

For this post, I will say I am intentionally discouraging this sort of behavior. I think Joe Johnson said that this was perhaps the “End of Elegance” in FIRST. With such support for this loophole of gracious professionalism, I now 100% agree with him. Hopefully the acidic nature of this post won’t send anyone over the edge. (ouch, it burns!)

(Someone out there back me up on this one. After this post, I’m going to need it)

--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>>
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 17:16
Jnadke Jnadke is offline
Go Badgers!
#0093
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Appleton, WI
Posts: 775
Jnadke is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Jnadke Send a message via AIM to Jnadke Send a message via Yahoo to Jnadke
Quote:
Originally posted by Ben Mitchell
--Ben Mitchell

<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>>
I apolligize for being ambiguous...

I meant to say that FIRST added the new rule. I'm sure they wanted to see someone do it. From what I heard, the referees have been pretty nitpicky with the lifting robots. They've kept a close eye on how stable they are with the other bot...

To say this issue isn't relevant, however, would be wrong. Yes, this must be addressed for next year...

For the most part, you don't have to lift the robot far off the ground to break traction. If you're a tall ball bot then there would be some worry, but I'm sure the referees would be more than happy to make the call to deny the lifting, if they see that problems may arise.
__________________
The best moments of our lives fall in two categories: those that did happen and those that did not.
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 17:39
bigqueue bigqueue is offline
Registered User
#0811 (A.R.C.)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 231
bigqueue will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to bigqueue Send a message via Yahoo to bigqueue
Quote:
Originally posted by George180
Disclaimer: this post in no way reflects the opinions of SPAM as a whole or any other of it's members

that being said, if i personally had a robot that i spent 6 weeks creating and you make an offensive maneuver towards my robot (i.e. not trying to block me from a goal or from balls, rather trying to score using my bot) don't be surprised if i make a few offensive maneuvers in response.

in short: you had better disable me on the first try, cause you won't get a second try after your forks are laying on the ground....

just my angry 2 cents

George

Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that.

I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)

Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated.
__________________
Team 4987: Megarams
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 17:47
Joel Glidden's Avatar
Joel Glidden Joel Glidden is offline
My heart pumps diesel.
FRC #4293 (Komodo)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 208
Joel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of lightJoel Glidden is a glorious beacon of light
Please...

Re-read this thread and then compare it with the one linked below.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&threadid=2840

It appears to me that there is a bit of a double standard going on here. The consensus seems to feel that violent collisions on the horizontal are perfectly kosher. But for some reason, the carefully designed and implemented lifting of a robot is taboo. Bogus!

Like I said earlier, all this hostility seems to be the product of fear and envy. Simply putting your robot on the field presents a risk to the other teams' bots. Virtually every aspect of the game puts robots at risk. We are expected to treat each other with respect and professionalism, but that doesn't mean we have to say,

"Pardon me. Were you trying to put those balls in this goal? Oh here, let me help you. Good show! I'll go back to my corner and lose now. Ta-ta."

A robot lifting strategy is not ungracious. It's powerful. Next I suppose we'll hear that 3-goal grabber / lifter / dragger bots are ungracious.

-Joel
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 18:14
Dave Hurt Dave Hurt is offline
Mostly Harmless
FRC #6413 (Degrees of Freedom)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 94
Dave Hurt is on a distinguished road
Darn Joel, you beat me to it :-)

What's the difference between lifting a robot and setting him on the other side of the field, and ramming a robot to push him across the field? It the 4 years I've been participating/watching this competition, there has been plenty of carnage due to ramming and pulling. I drove for the 2 years when I was a member of a FIRST team, and just ask Ken Patton about our races to get one of the black balls in 2000 :-) We both came out pretty beat up, and we lost in the semi's to them because I snapped an axle when we hit them/the wall. My point is, lifting a robot is alot less violent then ramming and beating on a robot to move it. So how is something that is less violent "not in the spirit of FIRST?" IMO, if you can't keep yourself from being picked up, you shouldn't complain. Someone came up with an effective idea, and if they use it to beat you, good for them!


That brings me to another rant. Please don't take this the wrong way, and if you don't like it, well, take it out on me or something :-)

I can't stand how there are some people that go off about how this and that are not in "the spirit of first." What really is the spirit of first? Is it going out and beating the pants off your opponet? Making the best animation? Having a bot that only students built? I think the only thing that really matters in this entire competition is how much the student learns. I think there have been several people/teams that have forgotten this. I'm not throwing names or pointing fingers, or saying every team out there is corrupt. I think that some people have just been too caught up with beating everyone else out on the field. Ok, I'm going to shut up now....
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 18:16
Ben Mitchell Ben Mitchell is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Bridgewater, NJ
Posts: 566
Ben Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond reputeBen Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute
You're new at FIRST, are'nt you?

Last year was 100% cooperation, this year is much more competitive. You CANNOT deny that lifting a robot presents a clear danger to that robot, no matter how well constructed it is.

Your...line about a team asking permission was silly, no team would do that, and it has nothing to do with the task at hand. A robot designed to lift other presents a risk to teams that should'nt need to be dealt with, lest FIRST become battlebots.

getting 3 goals is difficult, and does not present an immediate danger to the condition of other robots. That is good, we like good, elegant solutions for problems. Pushing other robots without harming them is fine, otherwise the game would be very boring, with robots avoiding each other.

Picking up robots requires teams to, in effect, attack other robots.

Shoving other robots is ok, as long as it is not of mal intent, but lifting requires much more effort, and robot must be PURPOSELY designed to to that. To put 6 weeks of effort to disable other robots is, in my opinion, against the spirit of the competition.

As for putting your robots on the field representing a risk to other teams, that's ridiculous, I’m sorry, but i keep falling out my chair laughing. You try and justify lifting other robots with a forklift by saying their presence presents a danger?

QUOTE: Virtually every aspect of the game puts robots at risk. UNQUOTE

Ok...I'm putting balls in goal A, now I'm bringing the goal across the field... I'm not seeing the danger, unless of course you mean winning by fair play, in which case I'm quite a threat to society.

Come on, how do you justify disabling other robots with a cohesive argument? I'm not sure you can, without taking major liberties with the ideals of FIRST. What lifters do is turn FIRST into Battlebots, and that is a true shame.
Reply With Quote
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 18:20
Brett's Avatar
Brett Brett is offline
Registered User
None #0201 (FEDS)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Southfield, MI
Posts: 22
Brett is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via ICQ to Brett Send a message via AIM to Brett
Preach it Dave, lol. =)
Reply With Quote
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 22:20
Joe Johnson's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Johnson Joe Johnson is offline
Engineer at Medrobotics
AKA: Dr. Joe
FRC #0088 (TJ2)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 2,648
Joe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
Lifting a robot has been one of the things that FIRST has been very consistant about.

It is legal and it is allowed. I think they said something about not lifting too high and perhaps there were one or two other qualifiers, but basically it is and has been legal.

I don't expect that you will be too popular with the team you lift if you damage them but I don't think they will have a leg to stand on when to say it is illegal.

If you ended up damaging most robots you lifted I suppose the refs may start looking at you more closely but other than that I think you'd be okay.

Joe J.

P.S. Team 862 got their forks under us in a practice round in Grand Rapids and dragged us a bit. No harm, no foul... ...no big deal.
Reply With Quote
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-04-2002, 23:27
Mike Rush's Avatar
Mike Rush Mike Rush is offline
Somewhat Insightful
FRC #4154 (Perpetual Recursion)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Eldon, MO
Posts: 155
Mike Rush is just really niceMike Rush is just really niceMike Rush is just really niceMike Rush is just really niceMike Rush is just really nice
If your machine compliments ours and we are in the same region at the natonals and you have the ability to pick up another machine attached to goals and in effect create more points for our alliance then yes, I would pick you. Good Luck at Nationals and I'll be watching for the fork lift.....
__________________
Mike Rush - Engineer/Mentor
Perpetual Recursion (4154)
Arizona Community Team (1492)
2004 AZ Regional Woody Flower's Award
Basha High School & Intel (1456)
Gila Monsters (64)
Awards!?! Too many to list...
Reply With Quote
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2002, 00:24
Wetzel's Avatar
Wetzel Wetzel is offline
DC Robotics
FRC #2914 (Tiger Pride)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 3,522
Wetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond reputeWetzel has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Wetzel
At the beginning of the build period while we where doing designs, a few students mockup-ed a PLATFORM to go under another robot. The basic idea was to go between the wheels/treads and then lift, thereby disabling motion on their part.

Ben: I do deny that lifting a robot presents a clear danger to that robot.

Thats where the engineering challenge comes in. It would be easy to stab the other bot with a pitchfork and lift. But that would damage them.
So how do you go about doing it without dammage? Matt and his group decided to go after what they felt would be the least common way to score points.
It got shot down for the day we had the meeting to decide on a desing, the 3second pin rule was released on the yahoo boards. We interpreted lifting them as pinning them and decided to persure other things.

Anyways, if it dosn't damage, go for it. Everything has the potential for damage. 130lbs moving at 12fps, just a bit of energy available for transfer. Pulliong a goal in a tug-o-war, possiblity for burnt out motors. Everything isn't safe all the time. Until it breaks someting, I say good job on a unique bot.
__________________
Viva Olancho!
Reply With Quote
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2002, 01:45
George1902's Avatar
George1902 George1902 is offline
It's a SPAM thing...
AKA: George1083; George180
FRC #0180 (SPAM)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 785
George1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond reputeGeorge1902 has a reputation beyond repute
My response to bigqueue

"Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that."

>>i never said anything about forks being unfair... nor did i propose anything unfair be done... i merely stated the probable results of any robot trying to make an offensive play with my robot: i would attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own.

"I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)"

>>first, i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions. second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. however neither in my example nor in the original example did anyone "intentionally mangle" another bot.

"Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated."

>>defense never comes into the picture... just an offensive reaction to a potential threat.

-- quotes by bigqueue with my comments inserted

one of my grandfather's favorite sayings went something like this: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. i can make the same analogy when talking about other robots... if a robot seems like it will threaten my robot's safety (such as having a fork lifts), i'll react accordingly to ensure my robot's safety. i don't advocate intentionaly mangling anybody's robot, but i may pay less attention to the damage i do to a fork lifter than any other robot.

George
__________________
George

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2002, 07:17
Scottie2Hottie's Avatar
Scottie2Hottie Scottie2Hottie is offline
Registered User
no team (PCEP Lightning (The AAAA - team))
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canton Michigan
Posts: 147
Scottie2Hottie is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Scottie2Hottie
wrong idea

You may have the wrong idea about our Bot. We do not pick the opposing robot completely off the ground, only half way. And thusly, doesnt need the forks to go under the robot only the edge of the robot. Nothing is risked because we dont go under vital parts of the robot. As for the elegance of the matter, I, as well as the rest of my team are proud of our bot and its uniqueness in this years competition. I apologize if its a threat, but please don't bash it because it is.
__________________
All the water in the world cannot sink the smallest ship unless it gets inside
Reply With Quote
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2002, 07:18
bigqueue bigqueue is offline
Registered User
#0811 (A.R.C.)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 231
bigqueue will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to bigqueue Send a message via Yahoo to bigqueue
Do you really believe in "An eye for an eye"???

Quote:
Originally posted by George180
"Gee...some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of "playing fair"...but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that."

>>i never said anything about forks being unfair... nor did i propose anything unfair be done... i merely stated the probable results of any robot trying to make an offensive play with my robot: i would attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own.

"I'd rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by *ANY* other means....sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)"

>>first, i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions. second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. however neither in my example nor in the original example did anyone "intentionally mangle" another bot.

"Don't give me a "self-defence" claim....your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated."

>>defense never comes into the picture... just an offensive reaction to a potential threat.

-- quotes by bigqueue with my comments inserted

one of my grandfather's favorite sayings went something like this: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. i can make the same analogy when talking about other robots... if a robot seems like it will threaten my robot's safety (such as having a fork lifts), i'll react accordingly to ensure my robot's safety. i don't advocate intentionaly mangling anybody's robot, but i may pay less attention to the damage i do to a fork lifter than any other robot.

George
Your message is confusing to me because right off the bat you say that if someone does something "offensive" to you, you would "attempt to make an equally offensive play of my own".

Then you go on to say "i in no way intend to break the rules with my actions"....but you seem to imply that the initial "offensive" move was not right.....yet your move would be "equally offensive"....I know that doesn't mean equally illegal, but that begins to sound like "Clinton Speak" if you claim that.

Then, in the next sentence you say "second, i see no difference whatsoever... they should both be disqualified. " I understand that you are talking about my example, but I was creating an example that seemed to me to parallel your desires......

You seemed to be saying "An eye for an eye" or "do unto others as they have done unto you". Is this right? sounds like it to me. If this is the case, then I agree with you....you BOTH should be DQ'd.

I apologize for if this isn't what you are saying, but it reads that way to me.

-Quentin
__________________
Team 4987: Megarams
Reply With Quote
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-04-2002, 07:30
bigqueue bigqueue is offline
Registered User
#0811 (A.R.C.)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 231
bigqueue will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to bigqueue Send a message via Yahoo to bigqueue
Re: wrong idea

Quote:
Originally posted by Scottie2Hottie
You may have the wrong idea about our Bot. We do not pick the opposing robot completely off the ground, only half way. And thusly, doesnt need the forks to go under the robot only the edge of the robot. Nothing is risked because we dont go under vital parts of the robot. As for the elegance of the matter, I, as well as the rest of my team are proud of our bot and its uniqueness in this years competition. I apologize if its a threat, but please don't bash it because it is.
Well, it sounds like your team has put a lot of thought into this, and I have no doubt have a good design.

Many are afraid of things that are "different"....but it is these very differences that allow we humans to progress and move forward.

There are people who live by the moto "dare to be different". ...and I think that is a good thing.

So, don't worry about what others worry about....you just go out there and show us all how it is done!

I hope to see your team at the Nationals! If you see Team 811, stop by and say hello to me in the pit. I will do the same if I see your team.

-Quentin
__________________
Team 4987: Megarams
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much planning goes into your robot? Jnadke General Forum 41 29-01-2006 21:29
Is it illegal to lift another robot off the ground? Tton Rules/Strategy 19 14-01-2003 21:28
WASH Palm scouting at the Championship Mike Soukup Scouting 2 19-04-2002 15:14
Index of team's post about their robot... Ken Leung Robot Showcase 1 20-03-2002 17:10
about how Drive Train push the robot... shouldn't the force accelerate the robot? Ken Leung Technical Discussion 12 26-11-2001 09:39


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:09.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi