Lessons learned from 2006 and 2001

[Grim Tuesday]

There are a lot of aspects for this years game that are very similar to previous years. Could some of the people who were around 6 and 10 years ago, respectively, answer a few questions and share their knowledge.

To start with, how easy were balls to throw/score from across the field in 2006?
How did the winning robot in 2001 deal with the bridge/ramp?

[Mr_I]

You will find some significant differences between 2012 and 2006, primarily in the goal design. It was far easier to throw a ball at a 30" diameter vertical hole in the wall, for example, than I would imagine it will be to hit a basketball hoop. Not impossible, mind you, just more difficult.

(What was the quote: "It's not impossible, just improbable" ?)

[Grim Tuesday]

True, but picking up balls and storing them will be similar.

[GCentola]

What about the 2010 FTC game? There may be something worth looking into there as well.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

True, but picking up balls and storing them will be similar.

Not quite, because of the limit on balls controlled. You won't be able to fire a lot of balls in rapid succession, as was possible in 2006, with that rule.

[Anupam Goli]

2001 would be a good game to go to if you want to traverse the bump. The issue with the FTC game is that it is much smaller scale and it is not like the bridges we have. Our bridges exist in 3 configurations, theirs rotates on an axle, and they can go out farther than 14 inches.

[Grim Tuesday]

How about the ball shooters from 2006? @GCentola, you guys were Division Champs in 2006. Care you share how you shot your balls?

[Spen.M.P.]

Has anyone thought about Lunacy in 2009? Many bots were able to shoot the balls into the targets by bouncing the ball off of the center post. To me, at first, it seems like that would be equally as hard as this year.
That year we had: Moving goals with posts in center that slid every different way but a larger goal and slightly larger ball
This year we have: Stationary goals with backboards that are just over twice the width of the ball and a solid carpet floor underneath us

[GCentola]

I will d my best in recalling what we did but I wasn;t there so don;t take it for gospel. We will dig it out tomorrow for testing but here is what I know:

We stored the balls in a helix and then drove them up and out of a turret auto-targeted at the goal. I think we had a wheel that propelled the balls out of the turret hood similar to may teams in 2009. I will try to get back to you or find someone that know more about our 2006 robot. I do know (from past team members) that it was a beast and we hope to be successful this season too!

[Donut]

If you've never seen a match from 2006 then I suggest mulling through a few old ones on the Blue Alliance website. This is a link to Einstein 2 to give you a general idea of some of the best from that year (this is also my favorite FIRST match from any year I competed so I love to show it to people):
http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2006cmp_f1m2

There were a handful of catapults but most teams used a flywheel or pair of rollers to shoot. 25 I believe attached arms onto a rotating wheel to "fling" balls in a sort of hybrid.

As already mentioned precision takes on a whole new importance not needed in 2006. Hitting an 18" target on a downward trajectory is significantly more difficult than hitting a 30" target at an upward angle in my opinion. I know my team's flywheel shooter could have enough variability in the delivery position that I wouldn't rely on it this year; I'm leaning more towards a pair of rollers/wheels that can control both sides of the ball for better precision this time, or something that throws the ball instead.

[plaidwarrior]

The bridge from 2001 was VERY hard to balance. My team tried to make an automatic bridge balancing program but failed. At first glance you would think that all you need to do is to drive forward very slowly until it starts to rotate and then stop, but that doesn't work. The bridge had a huge amount of inertia, so once it started going, it just kept going all the way to the opposite position. I did see teams do it successfully in competition, so I know it was possible, but we never figured it out.

Now, having said that, this year's bridge might be easier or harder. We'll have to build one and see how it works. But even if it is relatively easy to balance with one robot on there, I'm guessing it will be difficult with two or three.

[Koko Ed]

In 2001 there were no bumpers on the robot to design around like we have to today so those designs have to be altered significantly.

[Kit Gerhart]

Plaidwarrier, Do you remember the width of the flat part of the 2001 beam that the bridge balanced on? I'm wondering if this year's will be easier, or harder, but I don't remember how the '01 bridge was made.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

There are a lot of aspects for this years game that are very similar to previous years. Could some of the people who were around 6 and 10 years ago, respectively, answer a few questions and share their knowledge.

To start with, how easy were balls to throw/score from across the field in 2006?
How did the winning robot in 2001 deal with the bridge/ramp?

With the 2001 game, you wanted to balance the bridge with two goals on it, but no robots. Team 71 pushed the goals onto the bridge using arms extended out, mechanically leveled the bridge, spread the arms apart, and drove to the end zone. That's a rough description; I've slept since then, so may not have explained it exactly right.