Predictions Week 3: Creating Flow

[MisterJ]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Very tall, and basically launched frisbees with a light lob - just enough to get them to float into the goal, allowing a slightly higher exit angle than most others I've seen. It is certainly possible to block the shots, but this requires a well constructed blocker (they can up the power to 100% and just tear through most hastily constructed blockers) and impeccable positioning. We had 1495 sit right in front of 225 several times in order to give them more horizontal distance for their shots to rise.

I will attest to that. 834 mounted a sheet of plexiglass on a hockey stick and added it to their robot before the semifinals. 225's shots just about tore completely through it.

[Deetman]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

Why weren't teams blocking them this week? What's going to be different in a week that would make blocking more effective than it was yesterday?

I don't think much will change as far as attempts to block in elims go, but I don't think I saw a single team in qualifications even attempt to slow 225 down. That is where I expect to see more attempts.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Squeakypig

It seems as if the full court shooter is making a mark this year. Something that people should know (something I found out last week) is that robot starting configuration does not limit you to 60". You can start 84". You sacrifice the ability to go over half court....

Almost -- it's 1/3 court. You must be in your autonomous zone or touching the pyramid to be legal at 84".

There was an interesting development in one of the GKC elimination matches with ad hoc blockers. 1987 put a pool noodle contraption on their robot for blocking; sometime during the match the noodles broke & were dragging the floor. After the match the referees were out with a tape measure, checking for a 54" cylinder violation (which fortunately didn't occur).

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by Squeakypig

Our "Plan B+" attachment is mounted to our hanging hooks and starts at 60" tall and when we extend our hooks is at 66" tall. Not quite 84" but more than 60". We use plywood with a strong fabric in between. Some people thought they could just shoot till it tore. Well it did tear, but never all the way. Remember, you don't have to stuff the shot, just tap it, redirect it a tiny bit, anything to take it off track.

Yeah I can attest to that not tearing. We tried to shoot through it in one match, we tore the fabric up but the wood was still there to deflect us just enough.

[dheerm]

Meanwhile, at the TCNJ regional...defense became an extremely important aspect of the game in elimination matches.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by moogboy

I can't speak for any other teams, but 1701 had NO IDEA what was going to happen at Detroit! We were completely shocked that we finally figured out what to do win a few matches. Great job to everyone!

You guys were a blast to play against, and made for a trio of great nailbiters in the semis! Fun times!

Having been a part of/worked with 1189 for 5 years now, I can't even begin to say how impressed I am with how much 1189 has improved from last year. For the first time since I joined the team we actually felt like a real contender, and it made the Detroit district one of the best competitions I can remember attending!

[KageRa225]

I know i speak for the rest of my team when i say thank you for all of the compliments.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Very cool, I would love to see match video.

I love that so many old vet teams who haven't had a solid season in a long while are getting back into the thick of things this season. Really good to see 225 doing well. At TCNJ, 293 was also doing really well, they haven't exactly had a solid machine since about 2007 or so. 303 also looks to be in much better shape.

Originally Posted by Gregor

What made them different than any other (tall?) full court shooter.

Do you have any video?

I just uploaded some vids to our 4shared. feel free to download, view and share as you please. there will be more coming (sorry if they aren't all uploaded yet. slow internet).

http://www.4shared.com/dir/x12_6H6t/public_vids.html

[Ben Martin]

Thanks for all the compliments, guys. We couldn't have won without 341. We were lucky enough that our off matches in eliminations didn't coincide with theirs. I personally learned a lot just this weekend while working with them.

Tech Fire is extremely excited about our first win in 15 years, and we hope to use the win to increase excitement about the program in PA's York/Lancaster counties.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Deetman

I don't think much will change as far as attempts to block in elims go, but I don't think I saw a single team in qualifications even attempt to slow 225 down. That is where I expect to see more attempts.

We actually talked about building one of our alliance partners in Q15 into a blocker to use against 225. I can't remember our exact reasoning (may have been that we were working on our own machine) but we decided against this.

It's worth noting that at least 3 teams built blockers going into the CH Elims. Of those three, one was a fabric netting, another wood and the third was a polycarb sheet on a pole. The fabric netting was quickly broken, the well constructed wooden blocker added too much weight to the robot it was on and leaded to it being too 'tippy' and the team with the polycarb sheet sacrificed the ability to go under the pyramid to add the blocker.

I guess my point here is that 'throwing a blocker on' is a bit more tricky than some people think - especially to do it legally** and without compromising some other machine function.

** See T08:

T08
At the time of Inspection, the ROBOT must be presented with all MECHANISMS (including all COMPONENTS of each MECHANISM), configurations, and decorations that will be used on the ROBOT during the entire competition event. It is acceptable, however, for a ROBOT to play MATCHES with a subset of the MECHANISMS that were present during Inspection. Only MECHANISMS that were present during the Inspection may be added, removed or reconfigured between MATCHES. If MECHANISMS are changed between MATCHES, the reconfigured ROBOT must still meet all Inspection criteria.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by thefro526

It's worth noting that at least 3 teams built blockers going into the CH Elims. Of those three, one was a fabric netting, another wood and the third was a polycarb sheet on a pole. The fabric netting was quickly broken, the well constructed wooden blocker added too much weight to the robot it was on and leaded to it being too 'tippy' and the team with the polycarb sheet sacrificed the ability to go under the pyramid to add the blocker.

I guess my point here is that 'throwing a blocker on' is a bit more tricky than some people think - especially to do it legally** and without compromising some other machine function.

Similar thing was experience at Peachtree with 4080. When we faced 4080 in our first semis match, we had 281 grab some metal and pool noodles to serve as a blocker. Thankfully, one of 1648's mentors was an inspector and was able to quickly get another to re inspect 281 before the match.Quite possibly one of the most brilliant strategies I saw played netted in the shutdown of 4080's full court shot and exploited the flaws in 3489's drivetrain.

832 however wasn't so lucky. I was hoping the 5th seeded alliance would've followed the same strategy we played previously in the semis. However, 832's blocker didn't fit within the robot frame, so some quick adjustments had to be made, but in the end they were disabled for that final match.

[DjScribbles]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Good call on 2474 Excel, Looking Forward. They have a top-class robot and an aggressive drive team. They and 2959 Robotarians will represent the West Coast very well at States. 2000 Rock and 27 Rush made it close -- a shooter jam in the final seconds kept the #2 alliance from completing a three-match upset in the Finals.

Side note: look for Excel to show an interesting high-tilt shot later this season.

We are definitely looking forward to state, though I'm not sure how likely we are to go for our "high-tilt" shots again after our close call in finals-3

Thankfully we got to the bottom of the shooter inconsistency, which had plagued us through all our elimination matches, before we bagged up the robot; so we will be back to 100% at MSC, hopefully with even more to show!

edit: Also, thanks!

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Just saw some practice video of 1640- those guys will be gunning for top seed at Chestnut Hill. I could see them or 3974 pairing up with Daisy and taking a fairly easy ride to Blue Bannertown.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

They've really stepped it up this year. Maybe it's another year of tuning that swerve, or improved drive code, or more driver practice, or the lower CG, or something entirely different. But they're flying around the field. It's awesome to watch them spin into the loading station.

I know I'm late to the party, but thank you both so much! We're still reeling from how good this robot is. I know we weren't up to snuff at SCH--we got our tails kicked in semis for a variety of reasons--but we're working those kicked tails off for MAR (80 points; fingers crossed). We want to show everyone that 30 (50?) point climb much more often!

To answer your question, Sean, it's basically all of the above. The big thing though is the drive code; we've finally got truly holonomic drive. The better modules, lower CG and faster finish (more practice) really makes it shine. Thanks for the compliments!

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Wing

Similar thing was experience at Peachtree with 4080. When we faced 4080 in our first semis match, we had 281 grab some metal and pool noodles to serve as a blocker. Thankfully, one of 1648's mentors was an inspector and was able to quickly get another to re inspect 281 before the match.Quite possibly one of the most brilliant strategies I saw played netted in the shutdown of 4080's full court shot and exploited the flaws in 3489's drivetrain.

Sorry to double post (and venture off topic), but I just saw this and I have to ask. These changes actually are legal in elims? We tried to make a minor modification (moving our camera after our climber broke), and were told by the inspector--adamantly and very loudly--that "no new features could be added in eliminations". When I inquired as to the restriction and why we couldn't be reinspected, it just resulted in repeated loud "no new features". I even asked if we could remove the camera entirely (it was now in a rather unsafe place), and the only answer I could get was "no new features". I'm not sure what that meant in the context of removing a device.

I then asked to see the written rule, and he finally said that we could do it, but he would decide to make the inspection take too long--we were only in queue and the alliance on the field had called a timeout. Our initial elimination inspection had taken all of 60 seconds (they just weighed us and glanced at our wider feed chute), but we were asked if we wanted to get out of line and miss the match for at least a 10 minute long inspection.

Sorry to rant. It only seemed odd at the time as I'd never heard such a restriction before, but now I'm just upset. The camera's not in real good shape either (the face split off again in that next match).

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Siri

Sorry to double post (and venture off topic), but I just saw this and I have to ask. These changes actually are legal in elims? We tried to make a minor modification (moving our camera after our climber broke), and were told by the inspector--adamantly and very loudly--that "no new features could be added in eliminations". When I inquired as to the restriction and why we couldn't be reinspected, it just resulted in repeated loud "no new features". I even asked if we could remove the camera entirely (it was now in a rather unsafe place), and the only answer I could get was "no new features". I'm not sure what that meant in the context of removing a device.

I then asked to see the written rule, and he finally said that we could do it, but he would decide to make the inspection take too long--we were only in queue and the alliance on the field had called a timeout. Our initial elimination inspection had taken all of 60 seconds (they just weighed us and glanced at our wider feed chute), but we were asked if we wanted to get out of line and miss the match for at least a 10 minute long inspection.

Sorry to rant. It only seemed odd at the time as I'd never heard such a restriction before, but now I'm just upset. The camera's not in real good shape either (the face split off again in that next match).

This behavior is ridiculous and unacceptable from a volunteer.

[Anupam Goli]

There is no written rule forbidding changes in eliminations. The head referees and inspectors confirmed it for us. We simply had to get 281 re-inspected before the match, and even then, only the weight and additional changes had to be inspected.