Why go over the bump

In response to this thread, I see a lot of teams who say it's best to go over the bump, but not why it isn't, or why it's advantageous to go over the bridge.

So the topic here is: What are the advantages of the bridge vs. the bump? What are the advantages that the bump has that the bridge doesn't, and vice versa?

[Zembas]

I think that with the right setup, you can traverse the bump a lot faster than the bridge.

[AlexH]

Why handicap your robot?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AlexH

Why handicap your robot?

Because there may be designs which allow you to be more effective at one task by forgoing another task. Take 469 in 2010 as an example, how many times did they cross the bumps OR travel through the tunnel? It netted them 4 blue banners and a CMP finalist medal.

Strategies can sometimes call for other systems to be sacrificed.

[Superllama12]

I agree, few will be crossing the field very often, but having the capability to do both the bump and bridge can be very important in the occasional situation

Pros: Can cross the field quickly, can play better defense, can get around defense more easily, faster crossing time, more appealing when choosing alliances

Cons: Heavier robot (if you use separate mechanisms for the bridge and bump), takes more time to develop and build, more expensive

Overall, it is good to be able to cross the bump, but it would probably be better to focus on other aspects of the robot such as shooting (unless you plan on doing hardcore defense, where it can be good to be able to quickly go over the bump)

[EricLeifermann]

Why go over the bump is like asking why be able to score from different places on the field. Some teams are only going to be able to score from one place or only go over the bridge. If you and your partners can only go over the bridge or only score from the same place then the game is going to be very slow and low scoring for you.

Being able to traverse both the bridge and the bump, as well as being able to reliably score from at least 3 places on the field is going to make you a better partner to play with, as you will not be interfering with your partners as much.

[JABot67]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Why go over the bump is like asking why be able to score from different places on the field. Some teams are only going to be able to score from one place or only go over the bridge. If you and your partners can only go over the bridge or only score from the same place then the game is going to be very slow and low scoring for you.

Being able to traverse both the bridge and the bump, as well as being able to reliably score from at least 3 places on the field is going to make you a better partner to play with, as you will not be interfering with your partners as much.

The game would not be very slow and low scoring if there were three robots on the same alliance that could only score from one place (e.g. the key). You just need a good passing game, and reliable pick-up from the ground. With this strategy, robots would not have to cross the bridge very much.

Also I have my doubts on more than a handful of robots being able to accurately score long-distance. I may be wrong, but it's the way I see it and a whole new discussion could be made out of it.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Superllama12

I agree, few will be crossing the field very often, but having the capability to do both the bump and bridge can be very important in the occasional situation

Pros: Can cross the field quickly, can play better defense, can get around defense more easily, faster crossing time, more appealing when choosing alliances

Cons: Heavier robot (if you use separate mechanisms for the bridge and bump), takes more time to develop and build, more expensive

Overall, it is good to be able to cross the bump, but it would probably be better to focus on other aspects of the robot such as shooting (unless you plan on doing hardcore defense, where it can be good to be able to quickly go over the bump)

Personally, I don't really see such a conflict here. I do think going over the bump should be accounted for because, as said before, why handicap your robot? If I had to choose between the two, undoubtedly I would absolutely choose the bridge. As with the mini bot last year, getting those end-game points are worth like 3+ baskets, more if you have multiple robots on the bridge. The end-game as last year, I believe will be very important and a wise choice. Do you get any point explicitly for crossing the bump. No. I know I know, It saves valuable time, but really, will it equate to a 10 (or more) point bonus? Yes, you could have other teams tip it for you, but I really don't think we should design our robots around other robots. But, I said if I had to choose.

Thats the thing, you don't!

This isnt some majorly complex task to solve. It just takes some ingenuity, which is what FIRST is all about!

It seems extremely possible to me to design a drive base that can cross the bump and also a bot that can tip the bridge. There doesn't need to be some extravagant mechanism, just a lever of sorts to tip the thing on the front. And my team has a drive base that just drives over the bump! No extra moving parts!

I think that the bridge is more important, but in the long run, a team like mine will be able to do both and we don't have any extensive resources or huge grants(We are in the two thousands).

Just my two cents!

[Wayne TenBrink]

Bridge vs. barrier isn't an either/or choice. If it was, then bridge. But it isn't so be capable of both. With a limited ball supply, one alliance can control them all. Perhaps the best way to get and maintain control of the ball supply is to feed primarily from your own rebounder lane, collect your opponents missed shots, and carry balls to the key rather than throwing them across the field. You might find yourself crossing midfield very often. Keep your options open.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

With a limited ball supply, one alliance can control them all. Perhaps the best way to get and maintain control of the ball supply is to feed primarily from your own rebounder lane, collect your opponents missed shots, and carry balls to the key rather than throwing them across the field. You might find yourself crossing midfield very often. Keep your options open.

No, it's not possible for one alliance to control all of the balls, even if one alliance is really terrible. An alliance that plays the hoarding game can hold on to a large majority of the balls, but only by not scoring while allowing opponents to score and thus digging themselves a hole. An alliance whose opponents have pathetic accuracy can hold on to a large majority of the balls, but do you really want to plan your strategy around your opponents being inaccurate?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Because there may be designs which allow you to be more effective at one task by forgoing another task. Take 469 in 2010 as an example, how many times did they cross the bumps OR travel through the tunnel? It netted them 4 blue banners and a CMP finalist medal.

Strategies can sometimes call for other systems to be sacrificed.

It's all about strategy. If you have a killer strategy that prohibits crossing the barrier then great, otherwise I'd suggest a more flexible solution.

Truthfully, it's all about your startegy, and your capabilities as a team.

[Aren Siekmeier]

We saw the bridge as the main priority since it allowed a considerable bonus at the end of the match, and also allowed traversal into the other half of the field. So why cross the bump? In the case of traffic issues (and even just normally) it will likely save time, and the relatively simple mechanism we are using for the bridge will work identically for the bump, requiring only a more specific wheel configuration. So for us, the extra design complexity was minimal, so the minimal cost was worth the potential gain (though it may prove only marginal).

[blackrocks0]

When our team first thought it through, we thought that we needed to get over the bump, but we analyzed the game more. We figured that one team will defend/score, team2 will score, team3 will shoot balls to the other side from the team lane. So if this is the case you will need to cross the bridge/barrier at maximum 2-3 times a game, so even if it takes a few more seconds to get over the bridge, it's better than using a lot of time/effort/weight to make something to cross the barrier.

tl;dr we thought that going over the bridge is better

[MichaelBick]

This actually wasn't a problem for us, because our bridge mechanism allows us to get over the bridge without stopping, and may actually be faster than going over the barrier.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

No, it's not possible for one alliance to control all of the balls

Of course it is. An almost arbitrary number of balls can be placed in the corner of your alley, which a diagonally-parked robot can protect just by sitting there.

Don't be so quick to dismiss strategy... Besides awesome versatile robots, it's what wins games every single year.

Originally Posted by blackrocks0

So if this is the case you will need to cross the bridge/barrier at maximum 2-3 times a game, so even if it takes a few more seconds to get over the bridge, it's better than using a lot of time/effort/weight to make something to cross the barrier.

We were lucky enough to off-season prototype a drive train that is just about perfect for this particular game; it's heavy and rather expensive (though not really, due to the awesome donation from Gates), but as far as time/effort it was a clever use of band saws and day and a half of tweaking/re-tweaking to traverse the barrier... and as for weight, we're at 107 lbs including everything but a few wires.

It's likely too late for many teams, but I think that teams that can't cross the barrier will be bitten by it at some point this year. In 2010 we were first seed tournament champions at FLR without ever once even trying to cross the barrier (we could, sometimes, inconsistently...) There were several games at Championship where we could have won had we the ability, but we didn't, so we didn't.

tl;dr version: If studying the elite teams has taught me anything in the past seven years, it's that the drive train is absolutely the most important aspect of your robot, hands-down, no contest.