Bump or bridge?

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Good points. A counter question I would have for you is what do you think your estimated time for crossing the bridge will be? Meaning, approach the bridge, tilt it, cross it.

Even if you save 4 or 5 seconds, and you only cross 2 or 3 times in a match, thats saves you around 12 seconds. That could be over 10% of the entire match.

The tradeoff everyone will need to make a decision on, is that time worth saving by complicating other aspects of your design?

-Brando

My guess right about now is three to four seconds added per crossing of bridge rather than bump. We plan to cross once at most; two crossings in a match would surprise me. We are perennially strapped for time given our limited number of full-time mentors, so complicating other aspects of the design is a big tradeoff for us. Basically, we knew during our discussion that if we made the wrong decision, our season would effectively be over... if we didn't build for the bump and it wound up necessary, we'd fail at the tournament, but if we did build for the bump and it wasn't necessary, we'd have wasted valuable time and probably have an inferior scorer.

Suffice to say it was a difficult decision.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Your most valuable resource in game during a match is time. If it takes you 5 seconds to cross a bridge and 2 seconds to go over the barrier (and neither damages/tips your robot), it is best to traverse the barrier. This extra 3 seconds per zone change is an extra 3 seconds that could be used to get that balance done just right as the clock strikes 0, or hit that buzzer beating 3 pointer! Always keep time in mind when evaluating your options.

I like this kind of optimization approach to thinking in FRC. With any game with a small count, recycling game piece, the goal ultimately will become at the very top level an efficiency challenge.

Remember 469? Try your hardest. It's still week 1, anything is possible.

[nssheepster]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I like this kind of optimization approach to thinking in FRC. With any game with a small count, recycling game piece, the goal ultimately will become at the very top level an efficiency challenge.

Remember 469? Try your hardest. It's still week 1, anything is possible.

True. But F.I.R.S.T. stands for something. So it just shows that efficiency is becoming an important concept in modern technology, increasingly so.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by Soxfan269

Also anyone planning on just going over the bump is forgetting a very important thing. You will have to have a way to get onto the bridges for end game. For these reasons the people who are planning on doing both seem like their doing the right thing. Personally I feel that it's unnecessary to jump the bump, and that doing so could cause you more problem (ex. tipping, router getting jostled and loosing connection, and potential for damaging the robot just from impact.)

Totally agree. This end game is interesting because for the first time in my FIRST career (unless you count Lunacy, which I really don't), that building for the end game actually was advantageous for the majority of the match. Unless you have the capacity to both balance on the bridge and cross the barrier REALLY REALLY WELL, the bridge just seems the way to go.
-$0.02

[Elgin Clock]

Where is the "both" option?

[Rangel]

The poll results are making me even more happy with my team's decision to go over the bridge.

[kccowan]

FWIW, we're designing a robot to be good at either scoring from our key or clearing (i.e. launching) balls from the alley to our side. We decided NOT to build a robot that would often traverse the field. It seems like the ability to control the balls will be a dominate factor for the main game.

KC

[Gray Adams]

I think it's going to be less important in elims to be able to cross the bump. The strategy that I envision being played out doesn't involve any crossing of the sides more than once, though that requires coordinated and fully functional alliances.

That said, it's not too hard to make a frame capable of crossing the bump anyway without sacrificing much, if anything.

One of our ideas was two powered wheels on two supports connected at an angle. The idea is that you have a sensor rotate the wheels, and if done perfectly, you would barely even notice the bump. Switch them fast enough and you might even be able to drive full speed right through it, as if nothing even happened.

Just an idea.

http://gyazo.com/3bc93bbb13c500e9f7b...png?1326347340

[staplemonx]

We are doing the bump