Barrier Traversal-Who's Going For It?

[ENIAC]

Is anyone going for bump traversal? I've heard arguments for both bridge and bump, but how many are doing which, and why?

We were going to, however in our recent design and strategy meeting we deemed it not important for our strategies.

EDIT: I just had to: "I used to want to go over the bump, but then I took a new idea to the head".

[Henzado]

We're going for traversing the barrier with ease. We just proved a concept, making it fairly easy to cross it with our 6 wheel drive.

[Chris is me]

We encountered more difficulties than expected and decided to focus on the bridge first, since the bridge is worth points after all.

[ENIAC]

Originally Posted by Henzado

We're going for traversing the barrier with ease. We just proved a concept, making it fairly easy to cross it with our 6 wheel drive.

Out of curiosity, what kind of device did you use? Skid plate, raised idler, etc.

[Henzado]

Originally Posted by ENIAC

Out of curiosity, what kind of device did you use? Skid plate, raised idler, etc.

We used a very simple design. Put a piece of metal in front of the wheels that acted as a slope before the wheels hit. While the back two wheels push, the front of the robot is raised, allowing wheel contact to hit at 2 inches (we have 8 inch wheels). I could make it over with little effort. The design is far from finished, but it shows great chance for success.

[Natatatalies]

Our team deemed going over the bump crucial to our strategy. However, we are still are able to use the bridge with ease. We narrowed our design concepts down to three and prototyped them all; Tank, eight wheel, and mechanum. They all go over the bump, no skid plate.

It depends on your strategy(ies). For us, we decided that we'd be going over the mid field area 2, maybe 3 times maximum a match, and even that on a rare occasion. We also wanted to focus on getting an accurate bridge manipulator.

[Koko Ed]

We're gonna go for the bump.
You should have made a poll.

[ENIAC]

We are also going for the bump, and are using raised wheels to accomplish that goal.

[Ben Rodgers]

I think going for the bridge is a waste of time and that there are too many complications. We're just going over the bump.

[372 lives on]

Originally Posted by Ben Rodgers

I think going for the bridge is a waste of time and that there are too many complications. We're just going over the bump.

I agree waste of time its just 40 points which wont make a difference in any game. (/sarcasm)

[LafondaOnFire]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

I agree waste of time its just 40 points which wont make a difference in any game.

Don't underestimate 40 points, by any means. The end game can often change the outcome of the game - look at the minibot races in Logomotion. If no robots could hang tubes effectively, but one had a working minibot, that was the winning aspect. Even if a team is 39 points down, getting the end game of 40 points balancing would prove to be worth the effort. My point being, 40 points is a LOT in FIRST competitions.

[Zuelu562]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

I agree waste of time its just 40 points which wont make a difference in any game.

Blatant sarcasm is blatant...

The point of "over the barrier or over the bridge" is for gameplay, not for endgame. I assume most teams will understand the importance of the endgame (especially in elims, where 3 robots on the alliance bridge is worth 40 points) and will at least be able to balance on the bridge, if not have a mechanism to lower the bridge themselves (which is important for at least 1 team in the match to have for coopertition points).

As for the actual question of the thread, we intend to go over the barrier at this point, with a similar skid system like Henzado described.

[the man]

Originally Posted by 372 lives on

I agree waste of time its just 40 points which wont make a difference in any game. (/sarcasm)

I think they were referring to during non end game stuff.

We are planing on going over the bump. And also the bridge but mainly the bump.