[MCC] Minimum Competive Concept 2016

[IKE]

Previous years are located:
MCC2015
MCC2014
It contains the links to even other previous years.

Here we go:

Each year I am amazed by what teams come up with to compete in FRC. Teams have a ton of wonderful ideas and some even see good execution of those ideas.

I would like this thread to focus on the "Minimum Competitive Concept" for a robot for 2016. It is often easy to identify all the possible tasks you could have a robot do. Prioritizing those tasks, and realizing it in the form of a competitive robot is in my opinion much more impressive.

If you haven't watched the Simbotics Strategy Presentation, please do before responding to this thread. Especially review the "Golden Rules 1&2".

Assumptions are that one of the primary goals of the MCC is to play in elims (not necessarily win on Einstein), and your team has mid-pack to lower fabrication resources.

Please list your assumptions, strategy to seed high, estimate of a winning score, and what robot design elements would achieve this score.

I personally usually assume for this thread that the goal is to seed high enough to be either a Alliance Captain or a pretty early pick. I would appreciate this year if we kept towards that philosophy.

I request you do this exercise first, and then you may want to see what the excellent folks from WCP & Vexpro brought to the table.

[CalTran]

For this year, I would say that the goals for an MCC robot would be as follows:
Can do Low Bar, Portcullis, both Category B, both Category D defenses, and assistance for Category C defenses.
Scoring in the Low Goal.
Cross in Auto for most Defenses, reach for other Defenses.
Park on batter for contributing to the Capture.

Robot requirements:
Some sort of "active" boulder intake (Similar to 2010 ones)
WCD or 8 wheel drop with 6" pneumatic wheels
Low static wedges to force Portcullis up

Match strategy:
Auto: Cross defense with ball for 10pt Auto
Teleop: Focus on quick breach of the defenses, while also scoring occasional low goal to help assist in weakening of tower. If paired with two high goal shooters, while breaching defenses also help by ferrying boulders across defense and giving the scoring robots an ample supply or boulders.
End game: Quick score of any left over boulders in the courtyard in Low Goal if there is still 1 health on tower, then park on Batter for Capture.
The strategy during Elims would be that the two other robots are the main scoring robots, while our MCC robot breaches defenses and helps feed balls to the slower 2nd pick shooter. Ideally the 1st draft will be able to assist in the breaching but focus on boulder cycles.

During Alliance selections, the priority is to pick up a high goal scoring robot that can also help damage other defenses. Then, the second pick would be a slower shooter who hopefully has a scaling mechanism.
Reasonings:
Obviously this robot is built more to play the RP system than it is to play the Game itself. Which I think is perfectly okay for a team to set out to do. I would say that it is a reasonable assumption that each robot on an alliance during Qualifications can score ~3 boulders (40 second cycles), and with this robot focusing on breaching defenses, it would be able to get 3-4 RP each match and seed high.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While a bit more advanced than the MCC, I believe that 1296's Mittens designed a good example of an MCC robot for this year, and that the high goal scoring capability would be something that a robot could reasonably add over time during the season (And a must have for Championships), even if it isn't exactly the pneumatic cannon that Full Metal ran.

[EricH]

Assume: RPs from breaching and capturing are important (they'll get ya 20 and 25 points later)
Assume: Early-season event (there's a slightly different assumption for a later-season event)
Assume: Everybody (else) goin' low bar

Requirements:
--A/B/D obstacles
--Visibility from far end of field
--C obstacles from Courtyard
--Boulder Handling (Low Goal)

Nice to Have:
--Activate C obstacles from Neutral Zone
--Low Bar capability
--Hanging

The plan: Drive over defenses B/D (25 points if one is done in auto), execute the spin move on the Sally Port (or the equivalent on the drawbridge--10 points), pick off any remaining low bars (10 points), possibly tackle the A defense if there isn't anything left (10 points) and go park on the batter (5 points). If possible, take a boulder each trip to feed others or shove in low goal (2 or 5 points per trip, 5-6 trips easily). I figure that's 1 RP and up to about 60 points/match solo, which would give a high chance of a match win when combined with partners' scoring.

For early-season events, that strategy can rack up some serious points. Can't really argue with a full breach done quickly and a ferry-bot. FRC2637 is a prime example (they're the small red-bot)--this was after their finalist run in San Diego (and resulting Wild Card). They had a couple of specialist mechanisms for A and C defenses (though in the match shown, they didn't use 'em on C).


When everybody's breaching in later-season events, the focus will need to be more towards delivering boulders to the tower. But that's something to tune in.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

If I was with a relatively new team with limited resources, I would make a robot that only goes under the low bar and score up close high goals with a pneumatic catapult. May not rank the highest but would be a solid pick by a lot of alliances.

[Kevin Leonard]

I'd like to offer up Team 5811, BONDS Robotics from Ohio as this year's MCC.
http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/5811

5811 had an intake and a decent drivetrain. They could score up to 6 low goals in a match, and could cross most of the defenses that mattered.

They were the 7th alliance captain at their first event, upsetting the 2 seed and winning Rookie All-Star. They were the second selection of the 8th alliance captain at their second event, almost upsetting the #1 seed in three close matches.

They competed in the Hopper Division, and were very high on our picklist for third and fourth robots.

[Lil' Lavery]

Requirements (rough priority order):

1. Durable design that survives matches (minimal radio reboots, brownouts, thrown chains, stripped gears, tipping, etc).

2. Can challenge tower

3. Capable of crossing terrain defenses in tele-op

4. Capable of acquiring and spitting out boulders

5. Capable of crossing terrain defenses in autonomous

6. Capable of crossing low bar in tele-op

7. Capable of crossing low bar in autonomous

8. Capable of crossing category A defenses in tele-op



Differentiating factors (how to stand out compared to other similar bots):

1. Low goal autonomous

2. Category A autonomous

3. Robot visibility past category C defenses

4. Shot blocking device

5. Predictable/controllable positioning after autonomous crossings

6. Autonomous routines with delays

[Chris is me]

There are several different robot designs this year that meet this criteria, I think.

Ultimately, the robot needs to do the following:
- Cross two defenses a match regardless of the configuration on the field (both defenses of one category + the low bar should do it)
- Pick up balls and score them in the low goal
- Stay on the batter
- Push

I do think you need a pickup to be consistently competitive. You can win events without one but you won't consistently seed well. This robot can seed #1 with some luck (or the ability to cross more than 3 of the 9 defenses).

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Requirements (rough priority order):

1. Durable design

This year especially, build something that won't break. And If it breaks, easy to fix between matches.

Add a quick ball intake/discharge for low goals, at most events you can seed in the top 8.

Last is driver practice. Practice practice practice. Two teams with identical drive trains but differing drive experience preform drastically different. Lack of robot features can be compensated with lots of practice.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

5811 had an intake and a decent drivetrain. They could score up to 7 low goals in a match, and could cross most of the defenses that mattered.

Fixed that for you .

At champs we had one match where we scored 6 low goals while being disconnected for 40 seconds of the match, and still another where we scored 7 low goals while carrying the breach for our alliance (I think 5 or 6 out of the 8 crosses). I'm convinced we could have scored more than 7 if the right situation presented itself.

But seriously, thank you for the mention, but I think we slightly exceeded the criteria for an MCC. We kinda set out to build an MCC this season with our goal of making playoffs at both our regional events. We ended up over-shooting the MCC by a bit with surprise ability to cross the portcullis and auto routines for crossing 3 unique classes of defenses rather consistently. But overall I'd say we're a fairly close example.

[GCarnes]

I'd like to also show off my team's robot (Team 5150) as an example of the MCC for this year. Simple, cheap, and robust were our objectives for the season. Total cost was a little over $1,000 which allowed us to have a practice bot and a competition bot. We had a drivetrain that went through many iterations to find the best option as well as an accessory arm that acted as a ball intake, anti-tortuga arm, and the class A defense manipulator. We were able to cycle fast low goals. (8 a match.) As well as act as a defender at MSC eliminations and Newton eliminations. We were 1st alliance captain at Kettering #1, 4th alliance captain at MSC, and 5th alliance captain at CMP in the Newton division.

Check out the event details here: http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/5150

Check out more of the robot and get in touch with us here: http://hybridhornets.weebly.com/robots.html

[Steven Smith]

This was basically the goal for 3005 as well.

Our robot was a chain in tube, 8WD pneumatic drivetrain, with a dual roller intake on one side and a single roller intake on the other. We could easily breach all the defenses (including a sally port spin and drawbridge if we had to drive over, tap, drive back).

By champs, we could cycle 6-8 low goal boulders per match.

We were #2 seed of ~60 at Alamo, and the #2 AC and regional finalists. We were #2 seed at Dallas of ~45, but ended up out in SF due to a couple alliance issues. At champs, we were #7 seed in Curie, and ended up leading that alliance to the Curie finals, missing out on Einstein by 2 points in one match, and 1 point in another.

The keys were recognizing the opportunity early in our season, getting a second bot built for the first time to get a huge amount of driver practice, and a focus on absolute reliability and scouting. We never missed a match, lost comms, or had a major component failure that wasn't fixed in 10 minutes or less.

Link to Youtube video of robot

[FrankJ]

So we are looking for minimum competitive concept. 4 wheel 8 or 10 inch pneumatic tires. 4 cim drive geared around 8 ft/s. (With MCC you get agile or fast, but not both). A fast intake capable of squirting the ball in the low goal. Intake could be a combination of wheels and pneumatics. A simple arm actuator for the category A defenses. This could almost be assembled with KOP and first choice parts. especially for a second year team.

With this you could breach by yourself if you had to. Score a low goal autonomous fairly consistently. Break the tower with a little help (and pick up the extra RP). This would you get picking at most districts & regionals. To win in eliminations you would need the help of a high goal capable robot on your alliance. (Add good scouting to the list)

[CloakAndDagger]

Reading through this thread, I would say that our robot perfectly fits this bill. We made the trade off of crossing defenses and quick low goals for shooting and hanging, but sacrificed high goal shooting. Although it was effective (we qualified and advanced through michigan state finals, and finished as an 8th alliance captain at worlds), we are hoping to have a high goal shooter operational by our first offseason competition.

Although clearly effective, it does show that we need to push ourselves. I feel like that as a team as old as ours, we should be able to accomplish more than the minimum level of competitiveness, consistently, no matter how many seniors we lose, or any other circumstances that fall on us

[marccenter]

Originally Posted by CloakAndDagger

Reading through this thread, I would say that our robot perfectly fits this bill. We made the trade off of crossing defenses and quick low goals for shooting and hanging, but sacrificed high goal shooting. Although it was effective (we qualified and advanced through michigan state finals, and finished as an 8th alliance captain at worlds), we are hoping to have a high goal shooter operational by our first offseason competition.

Although clearly effective, it does show that we need to push ourselves. I feel like that as a team as old as ours, we should be able to accomplish more than the minimum level of competitiveness, consistently, no matter how many seniors we lose, or any other circumstances that fall on us

CloakAndDagger:

Our goal at the beginning of the season was to qualify for MSC and we felt we could do that with our team resources (mentors, students, time, money) by building a very competitive MCC robot and were not disappointed [Team 1114 presentation makes this point about carefully evaluating your resources]

FRC3548, RoboRavens2, built a MCC robot that successfully became #3 captain at SOuthfield and then selected by #1 captain, 3604, to win the event with our sister team, FRC1188, who also built a MCC robot.

At our second FiM event at Livonia, after a few rounds of alliance captain picking each other, we found ourselves as captain of alliance#8. Our sister team, 1188, chose us as their first pick.

From this perspective I think the students considered our season very successful especially after we qualified for MSC and the World Championship at St. Louis.

One of the major things different this year was how much the KOP chassi had to change in order to be an effective MCC robot (our view). What normally takes us only two weeks to complete took us four weeks this year. Modifications to the KOP chassis included the pneumatic upgrade kit from AM, the AM front wedge plate, VEX Pro 13t CIM gear, 50 tooth trans gear swap, and new belts to go with the VEX 60T belt pulleys. We needed to resize our KOP by reducing it by one inch in order to accommodate the belt and pulleys.

As an experienced coach I know that our 10 student member team will peak at about 500 hours in the six week build period. As such, not having a shooter to reuse "off the shelf" or a climber "off the shelf" made those two items very low on the wish list. We are considering those off season projects at the present time.

One the great things about successfully competing and successfully completing a MCC robot is that the team is not stretched to its absolute limits the whole season long. This allows the coaches, students and mentors to smile and enjoy the entire season a whole lot more. This is an important element in retaining and attracting students, mentors and coaches for the next year.

[CloakAndDagger]

Originally Posted by marccenter

CloakAndDagger:

Our goal at the beginning of the season was to qualify for MSC and we felt we could do that with our team resources (mentors, students, time, money) by building a very competitive MCC robot and were not disappointed [Team 1114 presentation makes this point about carefully evaluating your resources]

FRC3548, RoboRavens2, built a MCC robot that successfully became #3 captain at SOuthfield and then selected by #1 captain, 3604, to win the event with our sister team, FRC1188, who also built a MCC robot.

At our second FiM event at Livonia, after a few rounds of alliance captain picking each other, we found ourselves as captain of alliance#8. Our sister team, 1188, chose us as their first pick.

From this perspective I think the students considered our season very successful especially after we qualified for MSC and the World Championship at St. Louis.

One of the major things different this year was how much the KOP chassi had to change in order to be an effective MCC robot (our view). What normally takes us only two weeks to complete took us four weeks this year. Modifications to the KOP chassis included the pneumatic upgrade kit from AM, the AM front wedge plate, VEX Pro 13t CIM gear, 50 tooth trans gear swap, and new belts to go with the VEX 60T belt pulleys. We needed to resize our KOP by reducing it by one inch in order to accommodate the belt and pulleys.

As an experienced coach I know that our 10 student member team will peak at about 500 hours in the six week build period. As such, not having a shooter to reuse "off the shelf" or a climber "off the shelf" made those two items very low on the wish list. We are considering those off season projects at the present time.

One the great things about successfully competing and successfully completing a MCC robot is that the team is not stretched to its absolute limits the whole season long. This allows the coaches, students and mentors to smile and enjoy the entire season a whole lot more. This is an important element in retaining and attracting students, mentors and coaches for the next year.

I'm not saying under any circumstances that an MCC robot cannot be competitive, but I am saying that we need to push ourselves further than we did this year. We have so many advantages over newer teams, and yet we find ourselves falling short last year and this year.

We get custom punched sheet metal from Russels Technical Products, in any metal we want. We have a warehouse from which we work, upon which we pay no overhead. We have an array of mentors from every field imaginable, and yet...

You guys spent 4 weeks building a competitive robot out of the KOP base. We spent as long trying to get our bases designed. We had the luxury of having 3 bases custom made to our specifications this year, and our arm as well, and instead of using this as the advantage that it was, we leaned on it as a crutch. We had all this free time, and yet, when confronted with regearing a gear box, or progressing beyond our first high goal shooting prototype, our build lead looked me straight in the eye and said it was too much work. As soon as we had preliminary arm designs done, our design team stopped showing up at the building.

We have work to do, and i and several other students plan on implementing it. In that sense, this year helped us identify the many, many shortcomings that we had, but it was still disappointing to say the least, especially knowing how much untapped potential our team has.