Going for 3 robots on Ramp?

[Ankit S.]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

People just need to get their 2007 robots into the design ideas and start thinking about lifting robots with their robots and then balancing...

Don't all the robots have to be supported by the bridge?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by BeltSanderRocks

Don't all the robots have to be supported by the bridge?

find the rule that says that I can't seem to find it...

[Ninja_Bait]

Does it break the bumper rules if you extend a leg down to balance the bridge and support yourself if you were on it but hanging off the edge? I'm not clear on that.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Does it break the bumper rules if you extend a leg down to balance the bridge and support yourself if you were on it but hanging off the edge? I'm not clear on that.

You are allowed to extend up to 14 inches beyond the frame perimeter...

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

You are allowed to extend up to 14 inches beyond the frame perimeter...

That's for outward protrusions. Can you extend downward?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

That's for outward protrusions. Can you extend downward?

thats a good question for the Q&A

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

thats a good question for the Q&A

That is true. I was hoping someone had figured it out, but I also forgot that CD is not the GDC. (Otherwise we'd be better at getting the game hints! )

[c385]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

That is true. I was hoping someone had figured it out, but I also forgot that CD is not the GDC. (Otherwise we'd be better at getting the game hints! )

Yeah, let me know if you get a response on Q&A. I was wondering about this also

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Hopefully if my idea gets through to people, a weight shifting mechanism.

Extremely high complexity resulting in limited value.

Originally Posted by BeltSanderRocks

Don't all the robots have to be supported by the bridge?

To get points? Yes. And balanced.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

find the rule that says that I can't seem to find it...

[G40] When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:

Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Extremely high complexity resulting in limited value.

To get points? Yes. And balanced.

Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.

Maybe he didn't understand what I meant or you didn't but i mean to put a robot on another robot and then get on the bridge and have it balance. As for him I think he wants to know if my idea is against the rules but I don't see where it says that you can't.

[pandamonium]

We do not have a Ramp yet to test balance but what about getting creative. Three robots could fit easier under an angled configuration...

[Siri]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

To get points? Yes. And balanced.

Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.

(emphasis mine) I see the "must be balanced" rule for the alliance bridge (G40), but where's the "must be supported" rule? It's mentioned in G41 w.r.t. the coopertition bridge if that bridge isn't balanced. No where I can find does "balancing" either type of bridge required any robot to be "fully supported" by said bridge. Did I miss a definition or something somewhere?

[Ninja_Bait]

The intent of G41 is clearly to prevent robots from claiming coopertition points by driving up the bridge halfway but still be half on the carpet. G41 doesn't even prevent another robot from going to the coopertition bridge to aid balancing (obviously, as long as it doesn't break other rules) by supporting the bridge itself. I think aided balancing is a perfectly valid strategy.

[JohnSchneider]

Yeah, I dont know what prevents you from taking the 111 approach in 2001...

Seems ok

[Alex.q]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

People just need to get their 2007 robots into the design ideas and start thinking about lifting robots with their robots and then balancing...

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

Yeah, I dont know what prevents you from taking the 111 approach in 2001...

I am not super familiar with 2007, my rookie year was 2009. If I have two ramps, supporting two robots, will I still be able to drive up the bridge, or am I pretty much stationary? Also, on 111 in 2001, robots drove ovr their entire robot. A similar bot this year would seem impos--, sorry, improbable if you wanted to be able to shoot basketballs.

Any hints on how to build these ramps?