Going for 3 robots on Ramp?

[Garten Haeska]

I just quickly re-read the manual and did see anything that would prevent you from having an appendage Cling to a robot to help with balancing the bridge?

Reason for edit: iPads auto correct is a pain in the butt.

[JohnSchneider]

When I made the remark about 111 in 2001 it was more for getting 2 robots on one bridge.

Your entire robot would be a ramp(so a maximum 42 inches long x 1 foot tall....not steep at all) holding the bridge firm. Robots drive on you onto the bridge, and the bridge still remains balanced, regardless of their position. In Qualifications you would always guarantee a 20 point bonus, and in eliminations you could attempt to back off and hop on the bridge as well for 40...

[Austin2046]

i really don't know how the scoring will go down this year... it's hard to imagine scores going over 100... at least not without the 40 point, 3 robot balance... but you never know what teams will be capable of.

i'd be surprised if teams didn't go for the 3 robot balance in eliminations, unless it was really difficult and virtually no one was able to fit all 3 robots on there. hopefully there will be a few teams who build a wide drive bot specifically for that purpose. they might go early in the alliance selections, depending on the number of points put on the board during qualifications... and the scarcity of wide drive robots.

[darkMatt3r]

We've been thinking for that a lot... considering either having a 30" by 27" robot or a 37" by 27" robot and basically maxing out the dimensions we could have to make for a sturdier drive base. Now, the question comes... what benefits do we have?...we eventually compromised with a 34" by 27" robot...Thoughts?


Keep in mind that the bridge will stay balanced based on the center of gravity of each robot. No matter how long your robot is, you can play around with the center of gravity to balance robots, even though they hang over the edge of the bridge.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

I remember talk in 2010 that said basically this, that people could score enough goals to make hanging useless.

... Except for all the 469 matches and some exceptions at the Championship level, hanging was just as important as scoring.

I beg to differ...

[XaulZan11]

If the current rules are not changed in a team update (which I expect they will be), whats stopping teams from sitting on the carpet and extending a 13 inch arm that touches the top of the alliance bridge to get balanced alliance bridge points?

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The initial portion of your ramp could only extend 14" beyond your frame perimeter. Given the more flexible bumper rules this season, it's definitely possible, but not nearly as easy with the size limitations. Your ramp would either have to be much narrower or much steeper to co-exist with the bumper and extension limits.

Or a robot could be built with a sturdy flat deck 11" high and side rails and position itself just an inch or so under edge of the bridge. Partner bot could drive up the other side of bridge which would lower onto low bot deck and partner could carefully drive onto deck of low bot (which could latch onto top bot, back up, lower bridge and drive up and position itself just past fulcrum). This assumes the top bot has a reasonably lower center of gravity itself and both are skilled drivers Lowbot contributes 10 each match in quals and 20 in elims...not bad for a team contribution. Not 987's cup of tea but could be option for others

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

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

the only thing the rules say about downward protrusions is this:

[G20]
Robots in contact with the carpet on their Alliance Station end of the Court are limited to 60 in tall. Otherwise,
Robots are limited to 84 in tall.
Violation: Foul; or Technical-Foul for repeated or continuous violation.

Based on my interpretation, this rule counts all vertical projections. A person can increase their height by putting on platform shoes (projecting downwards), or by putting on a tall hat (projecting upwards). The same goes for a robot. So, be mindful of which carpet you're touching and the total height of your robot (including the downward projection) if you're going to try this!

[fox46]

The question is, would a downward protrusion mean your bumper height has been raised?

[jblay]

I think that if you take into account how much you can improve your overall scoring and adjust the 20 bonus points for your probable rate of success depending of course on the robot you will find that in many cases going for the 3 robot bridge is not the right move.

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I beg to differ...

Ironically it was the brutal post match hang of 67 and the in match hang of some other team that's been to einstein a few times over the last couple of years, that did in 469 in the end.

[martin417]

After a few quick calculations, it would appear the to get three robots to be supported by the bridge, regardless of balancing (and assuming a requirement that the outermost wheel should be at or inside the edge of the ramp, and that wheel center is 4" from the edge of the bot), The average robot dimension would have to be less than 27". That would mean three 27" bots, or one 10" bot and two 35 1/2" bot etc. I see an excellent opportunity for a team to build a tiny bot with the sole intent of being a third pick. Any bot that can guarantee 20 bonus points would be a likely pick for the elims.

[Herbblood]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

If the current rules are not changed in a team update (which I expect they will be), whats stopping teams from sitting on the carpet and extending a 13 inch arm that touches the top of the alliance bridge to get balanced alliance bridge points?

The idea is very interesting, in the rules it says that the robot must be balanced on the bridge. It would be balenced on the ground, yet still in terms "on" the bridge.
Niot sure honestly if you could do it, should ask the Q and A when it opens if the majority of the robot need to be on the bridge.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by martin417

... see an excellent opportunity for a team to build a tiny bot with the sole intent of being a third pick. Any bot that can guarantee 20 bonus points would be a likely pick for the elims.

Mini-bots return!

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by jblay

Ironically it was the brutal post match hang of 67 and the in match hang of some other team that's been to einstein a few times over the last couple of years, that did in 469 in the end.

Yes, they would have won the Championship without the hangs, but that was not the single reason they lost that match. On Einstein, one misstep will kill your chances - it's all about perfection.

67 had a perfect hanger, but 469 had a near perfect robot. Better is always the enemy of good enough, isn't it.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Herbblood

The idea is very interesting, in the rules it says that the robot must be balanced on the bridge. It would be balenced on the ground, yet still in terms "on" the bridge.
Niot sure honestly if you could do it, should ask the Q and A when it opens if the majority of the robot need to be on the bridge.

That's not exactly what I was getting at. G40 says that robot(s) get points for being on a balanced bridge, which section 2.2.5 defines as within 5 degrees of horizontal. Unless I'm missing it, the rules never say the robot needs to be completely on or supported by the alliance bridge.

The question becomes is a robot that has an appendage resting on top of the bridge considered 'on the bridge'?

I think the answer is yes which should result in a rule change in the next update.