The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition

[XaulZan11]

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

[MrBasse]

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about.

I also feel the lexan would hold up just fine, the majority of the weight would be on the ground, there is one point where the lexan would be slightly off the ground that would see some strain, but probably not enough to break it. The key is making sure you know how high off the ground the mounting point is and building to ensure that you have no sharp edges that could possibly scratch or damage that lexan surface. We held a piece of lexan under stress for almost a year and the only thing that broke it was applying more force after bending it a full 270 degrees in a 2" radius curve. When it finally gave way it was exciting though...

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about

I agree that if you designed your robot for this strategy, then there shouldn't be any risk to this strategy. I'm more concerned with the teams that show up at a competition with an electrical board on wheels. Those are the teams that can benefit the most with this strategy as they switch from almost worthless to a very popular 2nd round pick. Will you be able to convice them that they should risk putting 150+ pounds directly on their electrical board? Even if they have something on top of their robot, it may be a risk they are unwilling to take.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

How much of a risk is it, really? Back in Rack 'n Roll, teams had multiple robots on top of them all the time!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27516

I'm well aware how easy it is to support a robot IF you plan to do so. Looking back at my team's robots, I don't think I'd want to put 150 pounds right on top of any of them.

[Kellen Hill]

The main possibility of field damage comes from the zip tie that holds the steel cable that holds the polycarb sheet to the bridge (zip ties can be seen at 50 seconds in the field tour movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMaqqmoLgQ&feature=BFa&list=PL23DFAFBB434CDB79&lf= results_main). Depending on where the robot puts pressure on the polycarb sheet, those zip ties might wind up breaking.

We've termed this idea as "Trolling." This comes from the idea that trolls like to hide under bridges as found in the children's story of Three Billy Goats Gruff.

[gurellia53]

Like everyone else has said, its completely legal right now. Designing a robot to fit under the bridge would introduce huge restrictions on size. Heck, the cRIO probably wouldn't even fit.

I think its possible to go beyond electronics on kitbot with this idea, but probably not by much.

If they answer this Q&A by making it illegal, they probably ruin a few teams' strategies, introducing some distrust in the GDC.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

Like everyone else has said, its completely legal right now. Designing a robot to fit under the bridge would introduce huge restrictions on size. Heck, the cRIO probably wouldn't even fit.

I think its possible to go beyond electronics on kitbot with this idea, but probably not by much.

If they answer this Q&A by making it illegal, they probably ruin a few teams' strategies, introducing some distrust in the GDC.

Team 179's robot, in retracted mode with their ramp laid down, would appear to fit already.

They can shoot balls, allow other robots to climb up them onto the bridge....

Really not so hard to engineer (once you've thought of the idea).

[Madison]

We talked about this some after the Q&A clarification about what constitutes the bridge. And, while we really like to win and really want to win a Championship, we decided to stay on the course we were already heading down and build a more traditional robot.

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Madison

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

Good point. While this a strategy that could work, you can't fit much in 7inches of robot to score an 8in ball or be useful in a match to help your partners make up the points you may not get while doing a triple balance.

Cool strategy but I doubt we will see it and if we ever did I smell a rules update or a referee with his own opinion about what constitutes a bridge.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Originally Posted by Madison

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

Tell this to Beatty in 2002, with their Big Blue Banners.

-Clinton-

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

Tell this to Beatty in 2002, with their Big Blue Banners.

-Clinton-

I'm not sure how you extrapolated from what I wrote here that I thought the 71 robot in 2002 was boring.

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Madison

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.

Especially when they aren't the only ones that are able to do it. I distinctly remember hearing that other teams could do it, but Beatty beat them out for the Championship.

[Brian C]

Originally Posted by EricH

Especially when they aren't the only ones that are able to do it. I distinctly remember hearing that other teams could do it, but Beatty beat them out for the Championship.

Team 308 from Walled Lake Michigan used the same strategy and it almost worked to win the Championship. They lost 2 out of 3 in the finals.

How do I know, our team (311) was #1 seed and they were our 1st pick................

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Brian C

Team 308 from Walled Lake Michigan used the same strategy and it almost worked to win the Championship. They lost 2 out of 3 in the finals.

How do I know, our team (311) was #1 seed and they were our 1st pick................

You had to bring that up

I was the drive coach for 308 back then. We shredded the gearbox on the left side of our drivetrain during the first match of the finals. It still haunts me.

311 was a great partner (as was SPAM). That was a great time.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Originally Posted by Madison

I'm not sure how you extrapolated from what I wrote here that I thought the 71 robot in 2002 was boring.

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that there is nothing boring about building a "Game-Breaking" Robot.

-Clinton-

[waialua359]

This will now be the most interesting decision/non decision the GDC makes this season.