The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition

[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.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've seen common kit frames support well over 300lbs of static weight. (2008 & 2009 robots with people standing on them)

I don't see this being a major issue, though we are considering bringing a few parts with us should we pick a box bot and modify them into a Troll-Bot. Hehehe.

[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.

[wilhitern1]

Originally Posted by JesseK

There is a large difference between a 11-oz ball and a 50-lb robot. That polycarb probably won't hold up over the course of a competition.

Not just 50 LBS. The second robot drives onto your side of the bridge. Now it's 170 lbs plus what ever leverage working on breaking the under ramp.

The first time a bridge breaks, I'll bet it gets outlawed for all time...

[EricH]

I'd go with the first time the strategy is used, regardless of the bridge's broken/unbroken status. Anyone else remember the robots that started stacked in '07, and the immediate response from the GDC?

I would guess that any game-breaker robots, while they may not necessarily be "troll-bots", are ones that come up with something very unique for bridge balancing with 3 robots.

[Kyler]

I feel like "trolling" requires a significant enough deviation from a standard robot design that teams doing it designed their robots around it. Week 6 is a terrible time for the GDC to nullify such a critical part of a robot's design. That puts the GDC in between two decisions they don't like. Firstly they can leave trolling legal and change what they visioned for bridge balancing. Second they can make some teams robots drastically less functional (or possibly non functional). IMO it causes less harm for them not to change the interpretation of the rules and they should leave trolling legal. Its too late in the season at this point to do otherwise. My guess is that we will find out tomorrow in a team update.

[IndySam]

I would also expect this strategy to be quickly outlawed. The GDC made great pains to make this years rules simple. This kind of stretching the rules is why the rule book ends up so large.

[jason701802]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I've seen common kit frames support well over 300lbs of static weight. (2008 & 2009 robots with people standing on them)

I don't see this being a major issue, though we are considering bringing a few parts with us should we pick a box bot and modify them into a Troll-Bot. Hehehe.

As XaulZan11 said, the strength of the frame is not the part to be worried about, it is the electronics board that is often mounted unprotected on top of the frame of a box-bot that one should be worried about.

[Swampdude]

lol, we haven't thought of this but, we apparently sport a troll mode.... No charge!

[lemiant]

In a strange twist our robot chassis is only 7" high. 6 bolts to remove the mechanism and troll on .

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I would also expect this strategy to be quickly outlawed. The GDC made great pains to make this years rules simple. This kind of stretching the rules is why the rule book ends up so large.

This stretches absolutely nothing, if you're taking a standard engineering approach to balancing first you must define "balanced" which they did in the manual, saying all robots must be supported by the bridge and it must be level. Second you look for what the define the "bridge" as, which in this case is an engineering drawing with all parts listed.

I should hope they don't punish anyone for taking a fairly standard path of thought regarding solving an engineering problem.