Most Effective Scoring Design?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

Don't forget about the hundreds of other talented drivers in FRC.

Don't forget about the hundred or so other words in that post.

[Hawiian Cadder]

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

I absolutely loved Team 40 this year. Their pink- style arm was very effective and their elimination-round strategy nearly forced a rubber match on us in the semifinals. Watching their swerve do a double tube autonomous was pretty slick as well.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Nick Lawrence.

Hands down they key to many robots is their driver. If you build a system that may not be as fast as another in THEORY but have a skilled driver you can easily make up the difference.

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.



A good driver can't fix everything... (And I know 1503 agrees!)

[Kearse]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I stand by my claim that a good driver is a key component of an effective design.

I'm going to have to disagree, I feel that there is a large difference between design and execution.

A driver is something that is outside of the robot, and as much as it seems some people on this forum would like to, you can't design a driver. You can design the driver interface (intuitive controls, logical presets, fluid/consistent motion, etc) though.

As for ease of manufacturing and driver practice...The majority of practice for teams occurs during the competition season. Either with their practice bot or at the competition. Being able to easily manufacture a robot (I'm assuming this includes building in a smaller time period as well) is more of a construction/upkeep benefit. The ability to put a robot on the floor in Week 4 instead of Week 5 is mainly an advantage for troubleshooting issues that wouldn't otherwise be seen until later. I can't imagine many teams getting a significant amount of practice time in with their drivers during this time frame.

That being said, ease of manufacturing does imply less likely to break down and easier to repair if it does. Giving a team more time to practice while another robot might have to be maintained. I still find that the practice time difference between an easily manufactured robot and that of one not easily manufactured wouldn't be weeks but hours, and depending on how much a team practices that difference in time can become minimal.

I'll agree that simplicity is always a key feature to a successful robot, and that drivers are a crucial part to any success on the field. Driver's are still something that has to interact with a scoring design, they're not part of it.

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein

Team 2016 had a similar approach, albeit not identical, to a 233 style. They were World Finalists.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.

<removed photo of robot that never existed>

A good driver can't fix everything... (And I know 1503 agrees!)

You can't rely on your drive team to bring all the magic to the field. You gotta have a fair bit in the robot too!

-Nick

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.

A good driver can't fix everything... (And I know 1503 agrees!)

I agree a good driver can't fix everything but neither can a good design. a 14 jointed arm may be the optimal way of scoring a game piece but if your driver can't use it you aren't going to be doing well.

In general I would claim that no one part of the system is best. I would claim that the most effective scoring system is the one which your team is adequately able to design, manufacture, iterate, program, and drive. I'm just saying that you have to evaluate things as a system rather than as a single item inside that system.

[Nick Lawrence]

Also, in the above photo that does not exist, what is that one judge in the background doing?

-Nick

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

That was a the Granite State Regional. I will agree, I was in awe of their robot this past season. What makes team 40 stand out is their unique drivebase that gives them crab like drive and amazing strategy.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

Think of 987's robot as an elevated 233 design...we often picked up on one side and scored on the opposite without turning around ...even during our 2 tube auto... enough to make it to Einstein with great partners but not enough to advance to final round

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kearse

I'm going to have to disagree, I feel that there is a large difference between design and execution.

A driver is something that is outside of the robot, and as much as it seems some people on this forum would like to, you can't design a driver. You can design the driver interface (intuitive controls, logical presets, fluid/consistent motion, etc) though.

If your driver cannot drive what you put on the field for him to drive, your robot is useless at worst. At best, your robot will be performing at less than its best the entire time.

As a pilot for an R/C airplane team, there are certain things that I will be insisting on when the plane's control surfaces are designed, so that I will be able to keep the plane in the air when it is time to fly it.

Can you design a driver? Not necessarily (practice helps, but not if you don't have some degree of talent). Can you design to play to the driver's strengths and driving style? YES. Designing in such a way that the driver's strengths and style play into your strategy will really help you on the field. This is, of course, assuming that you know your driver ahead of time.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

Also, in the above photo that does not exist, what is that one judge in the background doing?

-Nick

Laughing at you trying to drive on two bent wheels.



But on the topic of driver vs. machine, I think there are designs that lend themselves to easier driver control.

Driver skill was most important in the midfield play where you had to switch between offense and defense while grabbing useful tubes from the clusterf*** (pardon my french) of robots, tubes and inane boundaries. Arm and elevator alike faced similar problems.

Machine was most important in actually scoring. A long arm like 694's (I think we were dangerously close to or actually out of the perimeter dimensions of 84") was unwieldy, wobbly and hard to hang with. Elevators had the advantage of being able to line up parallel to the axes of the field, especially with swerve or Swiss drive. See 177's auton. The robot lined up its tube horizontally and vertically and smashed themselves face first into the rack. And hung tubes like that. And it didn't take a good driver at all.

Ergo, elevators always win. (It's a point of personal contention; I pushed elevators early on, and I got shut down by the arm camp)

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Ergo, elevators always win.

Not necessarily. 987's iteration of a long scoring arm bested many elevators. There's definitely a reason why they were the first pick at IRI.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

Not necessarily. 987's iteration of a long scoring arm bested many elevators. There's definitely a reason why they were the first pick at IRI.

I don't think I ever saw 987 in action, but yeah, okay, there were long, fixed-length arms that were driven well. However, I'm sure it wasn't easy at all to practice up to that skill level. An elevator still has the advantage of being easy from the get-go, because lining up with the pegs is so straightforward. You are always at the same distance from the rack, no matter what height you're trying to get. (That's another advantage of telescoping designs in general; you can always be in the "safe" scoring zone. Sometimes, your arm pushes you out into the "get pushed around" zone.)

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

I don't think I ever saw 987 in action, but yeah, okay, there were long, fixed-length arms that were driven well. However, I'm sure it wasn't easy at all to practice up to that skill level. An elevator still has the advantage of being easy from the get-go, because lining up with the pegs is so straightforward. You are always at the same distance from the rack, no matter what height you're trying to get. (That's another advantage of telescoping designs in general; you can always be in the "safe" scoring zone. Sometimes, your arm pushes you out into the "get pushed around" zone.)

The advantage was for the top row, you didn't have to turn around. It allowed a forward-back motion without ever having to turn around. They were a great complement to an elevator who would stay and maneuver int he zone scoring, while the over the top arm would go far for tubes.