Going for 3 robots on Ramp?

[notmattlythgoe]

The rule book also says this year not to rule lawyer and go with the intent of the rule.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by JB987

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

Not quite the design I was envisioning or talking about, but I get the concept you're going for and it's a valid point. I was more envisioning a 111-style "gatekeeper" ramp that allowed other teams to drive over them and onto the ramp without it ever having to be unbalanced. Not so much a team that supported another robot on the bridge.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The rule book also says this year not to rule lawyer and go with the intent of the rule.

What is the intent of the rules, though? We're confused on both intent and implication, unfortunately, and we will have to put many of the thoughts on this thread through the official Q&A

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

What is the intent of the rules, though? We're confused on both intent and implication, unfortunately, and we will have to put many of the thoughts on this thread through the official Q&A

If I were to say that I was balanced on a balance beam. Would you picture standing on the floor, touching the balance beam? Or would you picture me standing on top of the balance beam?

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

The rule book also says this year not to rule lawyer and go with the intent of the rule.

To be fair, they say that every year. The line between lawyering the rules and creative thinking is VERY vague at times.

I would think that using a leg of some sort would still be risky in any case as the weight of an 120 pound robot would be on it :\

EDIT: No good, rule update shot this one down.

[Frank C]

Trying to get 3 robots on the same bridge at the same time AND balanced seems a monumental task. First, at least one of the 3, if not all, would have to be designed to "fit together" on the bridge. Secondly, they would have to cooperate to a high degree to do that, AND balance themselves. Third, it would take at least a minute, probably more, to get this done... which means you'd have to forgo most of the ball-shooting part of the competition. At that point, you've put all your eggs in one basket, and, if you fail, you could end up with just about zero pts!!

I'm wondering if there is some larger purpose to this to make ALL regional teams cooperate DURING the design/build process??

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Frank C

Trying to get 3 robots on the same bridge at the same time AND balanced seems a monumental task. First, at least one of the 3, if not all, would have to be designed to "fit together" on the bridge. Secondly, they would have to cooperate to a high degree to do that, AND balance themselves. Third, it would take at least a minute, probably more, to get this done... which means you'd have to forgo most of the ball-shooting part of the competition. At that point, you've put all your eggs in one basket, and, if you fail, you could end up with just about zero pts!!

I'm wondering if there is some larger purpose to this to make ALL regional teams cooperate DURING the design/build process??

Personally I think a great strategy for a rookie team would be to design a very short light weight robot that others could drive on top of. During qualification rounds you could pick up a competitor and always get 2 coopertition points, and then in the elimination rounds it would make balancing 3 easier. I'd love to see a team win it all never shooting a basketball

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Frank C

Trying to get 3 robots on the same bridge at the same time AND balanced seems a monumental task. First, at least one of the 3, if not all, would have to be designed to "fit together" on the bridge. Secondly, they would have to cooperate to a high degree to do that, AND balance themselves. Third, it would take at least a minute, probably more, to get this done... which means you'd have to forgo most of the ball-shooting part of the competition. At that point, you've put all your eggs in one basket, and, if you fail, you could end up with just about zero pts!!

One would imagine it will not even be attempted, but considering the massive points at stake I wouldn't count anything out yet. The FIRST community has surprised me every year thus far. I don't expect this season to buck the trend.

[NOV8R]

In 2007 we mentored a rookie team (2250). We helped them design and build a very small ramp bot. If the alliance had a ramp it could climb it and score 30 points. They ended up being the eight seed. A similar bot this year could do even better. Here's a video of the bot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtD8v..._order&list=UL It became known as 'mini me' for obvious reasons.

[3v3rnoob]

We talk about how difficult it would be to get three robots on the ramp because of the cooperation involved, but have you considered the difficulty inherent in said cooperation? If you look at the field designs, you'll notice that one team on each alliance will be removed from the other two.

In other words, if you planned on being able to talk to each other with ease during this balancing period, think again. One team will have to be shouted to over whatever other din fills the competition area, quite a lot, if I'm familiar with FRC regionals.

A monumental task has been made even more difficult with the sequestering of 1/3 of the alliance; in my opinion, a 3 robot balance is not only difficult, it's nigh impossible. I don't think that it's worth the effort to balance three robots, but two might be worth planning and practicing for.

[Eric Kosek]

O. It is not impossible

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by 3v3rnoob

We talk about how difficult it would be to get three robots on the ramp because of the cooperation involved, but have you considered the difficulty inherent in said cooperation? If you look at the field designs, you'll notice that one team on each alliance will be removed from the other two.

In other words, if you planned on being able to talk to each other with ease during this balancing period, think again. One team will have to be shouted to over whatever other din fills the competition area, quite a lot, if I'm familiar with FRC regionals.

Not really. The teams can still coordinate in the pits before the match to settle how it will work out. Alliances already commonly meet before each match, having "opponents" do the same isn't a huge leap.

[soxfan269]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

Not really. The teams can still coordinate in the pits before the match to settle how it will work out. Alliances already commonly meet before each match, having "opponents" do the same isn't a huge leap.

I totally agree with you about the pre-game meeting between opponents. I personally don't see there being any teams until at least state, maybe even until nationals that either A. attempt getting 3 bots on a bridge. or B. are succesful at getting 3 robots on.
I can't imagine seeing more than one time when all 3 bots balance, let alone fit, on the bridge at once.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Soxfan269

I totally agree with you about the pre-game meeting between opponents. I personally don't see there being any teams until at least state, maybe even until nationals that either A. attempt getting 3 bots on a bridge. or B. are succesful at getting 3 robots on.
I can't imagine seeing more than one time when all 3 bots balance, let alone fit, on the bridge at once.

True, and frankly at most competitions didn't see four minibots until States last year as well. I'm really interested to see though if this task is really as hard as it sounds. Without a whole lot of testing it just seems early to call it out yet

[Benjdragon]

Here is something to think about. The bumpers are about 3.5" thick, so two bumpers adds 7" to the length or width of a robot. Most wheels are going to be mounted at least two to three inches inside the bumpers. So, you can have a wheel right on the edge of a bridge and have the frame and bumper overhang for 5.5 to 6.5 inches on each side. The bridge is 88" long. Subtract 14" for the bumpers of the robots touching each other and you get 74". Add back in the 4" for the distance from the wheel to the frame edge and you get 78". Divide by 3 and you get 26". Three robots with 26" wide frames and that can move sideways (crab drive, mechanum drive) would be able to fit on the bridge. If the center of the whells are more than 2" in from the frame, then you could go with a slightly wider frame.