Which teams are winning?

[MathFreak]

Which teams are strong/winning on week 1?

[Brian Ha]

#33 Killer Bees
#2137 Torc
#3536 Electro Eagles

Very high placed and well accomplished teams at kettering.

"Note #3536 is a rookie team and got 2nd seed at kettering.

[flippy147852]

16 and 148 did phenomenal at Alamo, from what I've heard

217 was BEAST at Finger Lakes.

[hektormagee]

-Those previously noted
-217 Thunderchickens
-148 Robowranglers
-67 The HOT Team (When their coms don't die)
-201 The FEDS

Some honorable mentions include, but aren't limited to:
-2337 (Very nice mini bot)
-27 (Also good mini bot)
-302
and many more

[stundt1]

check out team 2056 they were undefeated in the qualifiers

[BrendanB]

Team 40 was hot in Manchester scoring 3 logos on their own and having a 1.5 sec minibot as well! They also are close to perfecting their 2 ubertube auto as well so I'm very jealous I'm not attending Connecticut!

Teams 1519, 176, 131, 78, and 175 did very well at BAE!

[flyingcrayons]

from jersey 2016, 1676, 1647, 25, 1089, 1923, 2590 i thought did extremely well. all of them are going to perform well at their future events. 2016 has an absolutely incredible minibot, and 1676's drivers are fantastic (i know them )

[HarveyAce]

Team 811 also did very well at BAE. My team, although half a country away, owes them more than they know! Thanks team 811!

[Chris is me]

Are we just going to list every team that won an event this week?

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Are we just going to list every team that won an event this week?

Actually a lot of the teams mentioned didn't win an event.

Though there are many mentioned who did...

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Are we just going to list every team that won an event this week?

[cmass]

Is there any correlation between drive type and success?
- are good mechanums scoring like crazy and repositioning tubes as expected?
- are drop centers having any trouble with fine positioning in the scoring lanes?

Is there any correlation between arm types and success?
- I saw the Alamo final on 16's website, they have a telescoping tower, their partner had a four-bar articulating arm. Both seemed to score at will.
- 33 has a telescoping tower

I am a little surprised that there is not more hoarding of thrown game pieces in the matches I have seen. People seem to be playing the game straight up.

Anyone who thought the game was going to be played end-to-end with few pieces on the ground sure had it wrong.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Originally Posted by cmass

Is there any correlation between drive type and success?
- are good mechanums scoring like crazy and repositioning tubes as expected?
- are drop centers having any trouble with fine positioning in the scoring lanes?

Is there any correlation between arm types and success?
- I saw the Alamo final on 16's website, they have a telescoping tower, their partner had a four-bar articulating arm. Both seemed to score at will.
- 33 has a telescoping tower

I am a little surprised that there is not more hoarding of thrown game pieces in the matches I have seen. People seem to be playing the game straight up.

Anyone who thought the game was going to be played end-to-end with few pieces on the ground sure had it wrong.

Looking at just Traverse (and a few other key robots), drivetrains can be of use to a robot, but they certainly don't make or break one. Most of the top robots at TC all had a 6wd with either drop center, or omni wheels. The only time mech drive systems were useful were in positioning for the minibot deployment.

Of course, a good crab or swerve drive did help many teams do very well (as always).

For arms, it seems like a telescoping tower is fast, but certainly not the only winning robot out there. I observed many teams with either a single or double jointed arm do really well. In fact, besides 1918, the best scorers at TC were single jointed arms. (2000 comes to mind)
It all comes down to speed of hanging, and not the arm type.

As for hoarding of game pieces, we found that during eliminations, in order to keep our opponents from scoring it was a good idea to have a robot who would herd tubes towards our side of the field. If a robot can do this effectively, the top scores for that alliance will certainly be higher.
Floor loading is also an extremely valuable feature.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by MathFreak

Which teams are strong/winning on week 1?

148 scored as many points in two robo-minutes as the bottom 75% of Alamo did in 1.5 robo-hours. I know they aren't the type to brag... but if that isn't impressive I don't know what is. 217, 2056, and 33 had similarly ridiculous (50+) OPRs. NJ's 1676, 2016 and 1218 were huddled about 45, and 1519 just broke 40.

(By OPR it took the bottom 46 robots one match to score as many points as 148.)

The mathematical definition of OPR can be found here, in layman's terms it attempts to solve for the number of points scored by each robot during a match by solving a system of equations of which teams played with which and how many points got scored. It is a rough approximation of how many points a robot scored during its average qualifying match.

[Paul Copioli]

Competing at Finger Lakes I can tell you that 2056 is the BEAST, not us. Their auton was more consistent than ours as it hit every time (except one match when they turned it off due to a blown Jag in their roller claw) and their mini-bot deployment was more consistent than ours.

We both had a pretty easy schedule, but the only reason our OPR is higher is due to the fact that we had 2 matches with ridiculously good alliances. Granted, one of them was with 2056 but the other was with 1126 and 340.

2056 is extremely top tier this year and their robot is a work of art.

Oh, and 1126 and 340 are the real deal this year.