Who is going over the bump? (A Pillar really)

[dellagd]

I didnt see a thread for this (correct me if there is one), but anyway, what teams are having a drive base that will traverse the bump that is at mid-field? (As a normal occurrence anyway!)

My team is definitely, so how about yours?

[kinganu123]

imo, a no brainer since we can't throw the balls onto the scoring side until the last 30 seconds.

[pfreivald]

Yep. Not being able to cross the hump in 2010 didn't hurt us at FLR, but this year just plain isn't 2010... Zone management will be a big deal!

[Timz3082]

My input here, is it really necesary to cross the bump? Especially when it may be faster for one to cross the bridge and also safer? Think about it, Bridge= no blocking, (if so fouls will be incurred) Bump=block crazy, I expect to see many robots stuck or prevented from crossing the bump due to just a little defense, anyone else see my point? Crossing the bridge seems like the way to go, and it makes the intake design much more simplistic. It could even be faster... Please confirm that my reasons for not going over the bump are logical...

[jblay]

It really is more of a pillar

[couvillion]

I thinking going over the bump is a good thing to have in your design, even if you plan of using the bridge. If you came off the bridge in a match wouldn't it be bad to be stuck there the rest of the match?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Timz3082

My input here, is it really necesary to cross the bump? Especially when it may be faster for one to cross the bridge and also safer? Think about it, Bridge= no blocking, (if so fouls will be incurred) Bump=block crazy, I expect to see many robots stuck or prevented from crossing the bump due to just a little defense, anyone else see my point? Crossing the bridge seems like the way to go, and it makes the intake design much more simplistic. It could even be faster... Please confirm that my reasons for not going over the bump are logical...

Well, as our team is finding out, it's a bit more difficult than they though to tip the bridge. If this statement is true, I'm not sure. But we're fairly certain we'll be traversing the barrier and saving the bridges for endgame.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Timz3082

My input here, is it really necesary to cross the bump?

What if every robot on your alliance is a bridge-only robot? Nasty traffic jam, that. What if an alliance partner (or opponent) falls and blocks the bridge?

I personally know several teams that are going bridge only this year. I wouldn't recommend it.

[Whippet]

Occupy Chief Delphi... I am the 4 Percent!

Yes! 80.00%
No! 16.00%
No... but I wish we were! 4.00%

[avanboekel]

To the teams who are going over the bump: do you have a long or short base drive train. Our decision process went something like this:

-We need more than 12" to pick up an 8" ball easily, so we need a long base.
-A 4WD with 120lb on it, even with a short wheel base is pretty hard to turn, so we need a 6WD.
-A 6WD in short configuration would likely tip going over the barrier, so we need to go over the bridge.

Where in this process do others disagree, or come to a different conclusion?

We've designed our robot around our strategies, and our strategies will only involve going to the other side maybe once or twice per round maximum, sometimes none at all. Because of this, we designed to use the bridge instead of the bump.

[Nikkocharger]

My team is ready to cross the bump... technically?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8OUCOpnRo

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by avanboekel

Where in this process do others disagree, or come to a different conclusion?

Here's what we came up with:
-We need more than 12" to pick up an 8" ball easily, so we need a ball-intake appendage that extends out of the front of our robot.
-A 4WD mecanum with 120lb on it turns on a dime but can be kept from the key, bridge, and alley, so we need an octocanum with preposterous torque.
-A 4WD octocanum in long configuration needs only passive mechanism help to make it over the barrier, so why not do that?

Are we right? Are you? I'm sure experience will tell us!

[Timz3082]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

We've designed our robot around our strategies, and our strategies will only involve going to the other side maybe once or twice per round maximum, sometimes none at all. Because of this, we designed to use the bridge instead of the bump.

My thoughts EXACTLY!!! if you can do it well and consistently, then why bother with the bump, and make sure before the match, if you send a team across, MAKE SURE they can do it without failing... I feel the perfomance boos gained by not adapting for the bump allows for a better performing (and better scoring) robot.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Given two robots, identical in all aspects but one--one of them can cross the bump and the bridge and the other one can only cross the bridge. Which robot is better? The one that can cross the bridge, obviously.

However!

Crossing the bump is a tricky engineering proposition, and not all teams have the time to figure out how to do it. So what you need to weigh is whether or not crossing the bump is important enough to merit your engineering time. For teams with a lot of resources, the answer is yes! For teams with few resources, the answer may be no.

So let's do some bump analysis.

Q1) Do you need to be able to go on the bridge to win?
A1) Yes.

Q2) Is the bump as important as the bridge?
A2) Maybe! Let's see.

Q3) How much is balancing the bridge worth?
A3) Balancing the bridge is worth ten points.

Q4) How much is crossing the bump worth?
A4) Crossing the bump is not directly worth any points. It is worth as many points as you can score in the time you save crossing the bump vs. the bridge.

Q5) How much time do you save crossing the bump versus the bridge?
A5) Probably no less than two seconds and no more than five seconds per crossing (one way).

Q6) How many times per match do you need to cross midfield?
A6) Run some simulations and figure it out! Our simulations told us that scoring is fastest when you maximize efficiency, which is done by minimizing travel time, which is done by not crossing midfield. This means that two out of three robots in an alliance should only have to cross midfield once per match at most. Your simulations may tell you something different.

Q7) What is A5 * A6?
A7) Our team thinks it's between zero and ten seconds.

Q8) How many points can you score in A7?
A8) Do the math yourself. Our team says no more than 9.

Q9) Is A8 points per match worth the cost of engineering your robot for the bump?
A10) You tell me.

We'd love to be able to cross the bump as an insurance policy in case our analysis was wrong, but our robot is not specifically designed to do it because we have limited engineering resources. It's a mechanism that we'll make if we have the time.