Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?

[sanddrag]

This year it seemed like there was a major reduction of people asking in depth questions about robots in the pits. Likewise, there seemed to be a major reduction of the number of people going in depth talking about features of their robots? Did anyone else notice this? Maybe it is because 2/3 of the robots had the same gearbox, and many robots had similar arms? A lack of variety perhaps? Or maybe it is because there aren't many robots that really stick out at being effective at the game; they are all pretty good?

I don't know. To me, it really seemed like we didn't get any "oh how'd you guys do that?" or "what makes that work?" or "do you have drawings for this mechanism?" or "I really like the way you..." etc questions/comments while in the pits.

In 2003 when we linked together a Chiaphua motor with a Drill motor with sprockets and chains and had it geared for a final speed of 11 fps. Like half the teams in the competition thought that it was the latest greatest thing (having a fast/powerful 4 motor drive) and they all had so many questions, even though it was so simple.

Now, many of us take it way above and beyond that, yet people just don't really seem interested.

Why is this?


PS. I hope next year's game really brings a lot more variety and inovation in drive systems and has the opportunity/requirement for more than one mechanism

[dhitchco]

Our rookie team received a lot of interest for a lot of reasons.

But, for the "robot" questions, I'd have to say that it's the fault of the person who wrote the scouting form and/or coached the scouting team to NOT go and ask the in-depth questions of each pit team.

Now, also, there are a LOT of teams to scout out, so you have to get to the target teams and ask quick, crisp, sussinct questions in the pits to find their strengths and weaknesses.

So, no I don't think there was any "less interest" in the robots in the pits. Also, I saw a lot of teams TOUTING some particular feature on their pit storyboards, so maybe then you don't need to re-ask the question when the answer is posted in front of you.

Also, it's a two-way street. The pit crews should be SOLICITING input from other teams by saying "Hey, want to see my fancy multi-speed, mega-horsepower drive assembly?"

[santosh]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Maybe it is because 2/3 of the robots had the same gearbox, and many robots had similar arms? A lack of variety perhaps?

PS. I hope next year's game really brings a lot more variety and inovation in drive systems and has the opportunity/requirement for more than one mechanism

I agre on those two things. Alot of the robots were the same because there was relly on 1 ting ll the teams did. Stack on top.

[tiffany34990]

unless you had a total different arm never seen before you weren't asked many questions...the drive chains were simple too...nothing completely fancy...

so many more teams and matches to scout time was a bit short especially for smaller teams.

[JulieB]

i saw three basic designs
1) Pyramids
2) all 80/20 lift systems
3) and boxes

nobody was really unique this year
seems some are scared to chance with different drive train and such.

[dlavery]

Yeah, it is really too bad that there wasn't even one unique drive train. I was always on the lookout for some team that did something different that just four Chiaphuas and the kit gearboxes, but could never seem to find one...



(gently removing tounge from cheek)

There were actually a number of very unique designs and innovative components this year. Because many of the "basics" were provided in the kits this year, many teams were able to focus their attention on developing new capabilities at a more detailed level than before. One side-effect of that is the new developments might not hit you in the face when you first looked at a robot, because their physical manifestations were more subtle. But I would posit that things like the noticeable increase in the use of PID controls, subtle refinements in choice of materials for wheel surfaces, gripper designs (anybody else pay attention to Team 16?), and many other advances in design were there - if you looked for them - and were significant.

-dave

[Daniel Brim]

No matter what the game design is, you can come up with something unique. Again, 16 is a good example with their corkscrew. There were unique drive trains (357, 190, and 116 come to mind) and unique arms [shameless plug]like ours[/shameless plug]. If you want more in depth questions, like we had, build a unique mechanism that makes you stand out! While 75% of robots had a "chop stick lift" design, there were unique arms.

[Allison K]

I'm not sure it had anything to do with less interest in the Robots this year, but with the more hectic pace of the competition. I saw all kinds of systems that I would have liked to study more closely, but with more matches, closer together, and more scouting to do for each match, there just wasn't time.

I did like the 3 vs. 3 format though, even though it meant less time to study other teams.

~Allison

[BandChick]

There were certainly a LOT of unique features that I saw between Philli, NJ, and Nationals this year. I think, however, a lot of scouting teams feel overly busy and scatterbrained when they're walking around the pits. Usually there is so much information to get done and so little time to do it. A lot of the time, I was just to frazzled to ASK. Sparky actually took the time to EXPLAIN the unique features on their bot.

You can't expect someone to want more information, but if you supply it, most people will listen.

[Juju1031]

i think it was because a lot teams spent more time on perfecting there robots. Also because every had at least 2-3 other teams that looked like it at a regional.

[Francis-134]

In the pits, it seemed like many people were asking about our robot. Regardless, I would say that the lack of interest was because there was only 1 thing that really mattered: scoring tetras. Indeed, there were defensive robots, but the kit transmissions and other similar designs made just about every robot with a low center of gravity a possible defensive robot. And I can personally vouch for the hectic-ness in the pits (try scouting all of Archimedes by yourself ).

Our team seems to be a contradiction to this... We had many people ask about how we did our swivel drive, or crab drive. I remember at the Sacramento regional the team captain put me in charge of "bragging about the swivel drive" because he was tired of saying the same thing over and over. The answer to why not many teams were asked in depth questions about their drive trains in most likely due to the fact that there were mainly tank drive systems this year. I'd be willing to bet that the teams with strange and innovational drive systems/arms got many people asking questions. wow.... just for the record, that was the longest post of my life.

[Andrew Rudolph]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

I'd be willing to bet that the teams with strange and innovational drive systems/arms got many people asking questions.

Yeah, for our team with the holonomic drive, we didnt stop talking to people. In fact, we had a hard time getting the robot out of the pit to go begin the inspection process!! Every member of our team was talking to people in our pit non-stop the entire competition.

[Starke]

I would actually respond to this Question with a yes and no.

Yes: I saw less talking to scouts and other people in our pit. If people have seen Bertha (340's 2005 robot) we were mainly asked how we fit into the template box. We then would explain how the arm folds. The only other main question in our pit was about the XRP 3 speeds.

No: I know that I asked many teams about their robots. I saw many people around asking in depth questions that were important. Some that come to mind that I asked about are 67 (crab drive and arm), 111 (all of the moving components), 330 (how worked so well and so simple) and 639 (arm and claw).

Compared to last year, 340 definitely saw less in depth questions in our pit. I think for one was that this year we were not as unique. We did not do something that was really innovative compared to other years. Last year we had a very unique tri-wheel design that worked very well and was different than most robots (Seen here and here). I remember that a person from howstuffworks.com interviewed our team about the tri-wheel design.

In my opinion there are mainly two reasons for a decrease of in depth question this year. For one the game this year is mostly about stacking tetras. Also there is not as much time this year between matches because of the 3v3 setup.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by dlavery

One side-effect of that is the new developments might not hit you in the face when you first looked at a robot, because their physical manifestations were more subtle.

Oh I would disagree because many of them tried very hard (or at least it seemed that way) to hit me square in the face with an arm, tetra, or another robot. Personally I wish I would have had more time to walk around the pits but I found a very large number of unique things to ask questions about. 217's drawer slide "shuttle" system, 233's smooth operating (but very quick and reliable) arm, 25's killer drive system, and a whole host of other ideas that were used while being very unique at the same time. I hope people don't just that everything was the same and there were only a few types of robots because many people have similar concept, but I saw almost no (exception 60/254/22, 1114/1503/1680) identical concepts. I think if you say well everyone had the same robot you missed a whole lot of interesting things that the teams had to do to get their desired results.

and unique drive systems (you obviously didn't look hard enough if you said there wasn't anything interesting): 67's swerve drive, 343's heavily modified AM shifters, and if memory serves me correct there was a team that shifted the kit gearbox by moving it back and forth and therefore tensioning different belts. look @ 1002 and their holonomic drive train that shifted the wheels (and gearboxes if my memory is accurate) in and out to give them more stability.

I think people just need to look harder.