Top 3 bots in your state: 2013

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by R.C.

They FCS'd at champs and are pretty good at it!

I would have to agree with Micheal.

After 254/1538. 3rd IMO could go to 971/973/1717.All were very very solid!

-RC

Can't forget 1662!

696 was good for sure, and this was their best season recently; but they're not top 3 in CA, too many good teams. Top 10 for sure though.

[Sir Zordor]

Virginia does not have any championship contending robots right now, but

1541- Winners of Virginia Regional

1262 (mine) - Winners of Virginia Regional 2 years now, Winners of Illite Robotics Challenge

401- Semi finalists at Virginia Regional (beat by our alliance), Finalists at Palmetto Regional

[Lij2015]

Originally Posted by Sir Zordor

Virginia does not have any championship contending robots right now, but

1541- Winners of Virginia Regional

1262 (mine) - Winners of Virginia Regional 2 years now, Winners of Illite Robotics Challenge

401- Semi finalists at Virginia Regional (beat by our alliance), Finalists at Palmetto Regional

I'd probably throw 612 in over 401, they didn't do well at the Virginia regional because of the #1 seeded alliance.

[Kellen Hill]

I'll throw a few out for Georgia even though I didn't get to watch too many matches this year.

2415: While they weren't completely on their game at Peachtree, where I saw them, it seems they started to hit their 7 disk auton and sweep up the floor pretty effectively at champs.

1261: One of the stronger cyclers I was able to see at Peachtree.

4080: Their full court shooting abilities seemed to come out of nowhere as they went the distance for the regional win. Not the most accurate FCS from what I saw, but had the ability to swing matches significantly when they found their spot.

Other teams to note for Georgia, from what I saw, include: 1648, 4509, and 2974

[David13]

Originally Posted by Gregor

In our province however, I'd have to say 1114*, 2056*, and 1310.

I agree with you on the first two, but I would choose 610 over 1310 as the third choice. Given 610's ridiculous speed, driver skill, and shooting velocity, I would argue that they may have been the best cycler in all of FRC (although teams like 1986, 3539, and 1114 may challenge them for that title). At Waterloo I remember a few matches where they went to the feeder station with less than 15 seconds left and still managed to score all four disks and hang for 10. I think they once ran 8 cycles in a game or something absurd like that. Combining that with FCS capability, a 5-disk auto, and a quick 10-point hang, I would give them the #3 spot in Ontario. On a side note, 610 won the World Championships.

My Ontario Top 3: 1114, 2056, 610

Honourable Mentions: 1310, 1334, 1241

[Sir Zordor]

Originally Posted by Lij2015

I'd probably throw 612 in over 401, they didn't do well at the Virginia regional because of the #1 seeded alliance.

612 was a very good team I will admit, I was unsure if they were Virginia though I honestly could not remember, but I know 401 and 612 would definitely be very close when it came to how they stacked up (mainly has to do with 612's 2 disk auto versus 3 disk, and had a lower percent of making than 401, but in game about the same saying 612 actually had better firing capabilities and drive train)

[Lij2015]

Originally Posted by Sir Zordor

612 was a very good team I will admit, I was unsure if they were Virginia though I honestly could not remember, but I know 401 and 612 would definitely be very close when it came to how they stacked up (mainly has to do with 612's 2 disk auto versus 3 disk, and had a lower percent of making than 401, but in game about the same saying 612 actually had better firing capabilities and drive train)

Yeah, they got picked by backwoods bots and declined from the 8th or 7th seed.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by David13

...5-disk auto

610 was great, but their floor pickup was lacking, and it only existed for 12 official matches. In those 12 matches I believe they scored something like 4 extra autonomous disks.

1310's 7 disk gives them a 24 point (2 cycle) jump on 610 coming out of auto. 610 is indubitably the better cycler, making at least 2 more cycles a match than 1310. However 1310 has a more consistant full-court shooter, and a floor pickup.

In conclusion, I don't really know who's better.

[jamierose]

I agree with Gregor that we're not necessarily better than 1310, at least in terms of the robots.
First of all, we could never full court and intake at the same time because we couldn't fit both mechanisms on at once. Also, like Gregor said, our intake was very inaccurate because we didn't have a proper practice bot to test it on when we made it.

Also, 1310 had an intake, a good FCS, and was able to cycle at a speed comparable to ours.

They also had the same shooter design as the one we had for our first two regionals. We then made a slightly more powerful one for the championship. I don't know how much faster the new one is, but if we could shoot 7 cycles at our first regional I'm sure they have the capability to as well. Our retractable hard stops may make a small difference in cycling time, though, but I don't think we ever measured how they affect cycling time.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

There are multiple honorable mentions for CA. 973 was very good too, although they didn't seed very high at CMP. I would say they are the best cycler in California.

I don't remember seeing 1717 FCS, though I could be wrong. I know for sure they didn't have one at LA, though maybe they gained the ability later.

I haven't seen videos of all the contenders for best cycler in CA, but after I saw videos of 973 cycling and sinking some centerline auto discs, I was really impressed by their intake as well as their really consistent shooter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ6rbMWrdFM

Anyone know why they were so tall? Did they have FCS abilities that I haven't seen?

[MrTechCenter]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I haven't seen videos of all the contenders for best cycler in CA, but after I saw videos of 973 cycling and sinking some centerline auto discs, I was really impressed by their intake as well as their really consistent shooter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ6rbMWrdFM

Anyone know why they were so tall? Did they have FCS abilities that I haven't seen?

They were indeed a very quick and efficient cycler, one of the best I saw. Their tall design worked out for them, as it allowed their feeder to feed all 4 discs quickly and get their shots off quick as well. And their floor pickup made their entire design linear from ground to shooter. And to climb it was just a simple run into the pyramid.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by MrTechCenter

They were indeed a very quick and efficient cycler, one of the best I saw. Their tall design worked out for them, as it allowed their feeder to feed all 4 discs quickly and get their shots off quick as well. And their floor pickup made their entire design linear from ground to shooter. And to climb it was just a simple run into the pyramid.

From what I heard from Adam they wanted to index all the disks in a straight line. In addition the simpler design allowed them to finish earlier. The simpler design definitely showed as they outclassed other great teams like 1717 at LA.

[donkehote]

Originally Posted by jamierose

They also had the same shooter design as the one we had for our first two regionals. We then made a slightly more powerful one for the championship. I don't know how much faster the new one is, but if we could shoot 7 cycles at our first regional I'm sure they have the capability to as well.

Not quite true.
As the mentor assigned to the shooter i feel i have to step in here. 1310's shooter has always been very similar to 610's, and all the other teams with 90* curved shooters, however, your post is significantly inaccurate.

1310 always had a shooter in that orientation, and had at least 2 mini cims. Our prototype had 3 minis, and was WAY overkill. 610 actually flipped they're shooter to match ours as the full court shots hit more of the goal that way. 610 also added a second minicim. We worked with 610, building our shooters with insight from the other team, but neither of us copied each other. we both prototyped our shooters in private, and only saw each others 3 days before bag day.

At that time, we were using a 6" colson, had 3 mini cims, belt drive with a 1:1.3 ratio and plates made of 1/8 aluminium. 610's shooter was a mirrored version of ours, made of polycarb and UHMW, with 1 minicim, and the magical 6" pneumatic tire from McmasterCarr. When i saw that tire, I immediately saw its advantages, and realized we would need to make a new shooter that was wider to accommodate the wheel. Andymark had released the 6" plastic hub at this point (610 made they're own) so we knew what the next version would be.

While 610 bagged they're shooter with the robot, (IIRC, correct me if im wrong) we kept developing. Apart from widening the gap between the plates, using thinner aluminium to save weight, and changing to a 3 plate design for ease of maintenance, the geometry and design of our shooter stayed the same. With the pneumatic tire, we instantly saw a more consistent full court, with more accuracy, and the drop to 2 mini cims didn`t affect our shot speed or rate significantly. Before champs, we tested 9 different backing materials and found one that gave us an amazing grouping. Besides the odd anomaly disk, we were basically able to shoot into a shoe box at the full court distance.

In total we made 3 full shooters, culminating in the shooter we have today, an 85%+ accurate Fullcourt with a 1 second frequency, and a comparable shot rate to 610 up close, about 2 disks per second. We had the same motors, same wheel, same belt system, same gear ratio, same orientation, and the same PID system.

The only difference was hopper and hammer design. 610 had an internal hammer, catching the inside edge of the Frisbee, and a detent piston that stopped premature firing of disks. we had an external hammer, pushing on the outside of the disks, with 3 zip ties as our detent.

Our shooter at waterloo was the setup 610 changed to for champs. (aside from the differences above)

Sorry about the wall of text, but i wanted to clarify that we did not copy 610, and 610 did not copy us, we both ended up at the shooters we have now due to separate development, with similar goals, while learning from the systems each other had.




As far as picking the top 3, (i should do that instead of just derailing the thread) I choose to pick 610, 1334 and 1241. All of us in Ontario know that 1114 and 2056 are going to be the #1 and #2 in Ontario, if not the world, so im ignoring them completely
I want to share the love with some other Ontario teams.

610 was the fastest pure cycler in Ontario, 1334 had the fastest climb and dump combo in first (1114 could climb faster, but if you add the time for the dump, 1334 is faster by a second or so at IRI) and 1241 had the most dedicated, practiced drive team, and an amazing coach.


TLDR:

why should i make a summary, either read the post, or move on, your choice.

[Peter Matteson]

Thanks for all the 177 love among the CT teams.

I agree Cyberknights were the best team in CT this year with their accurate full court shooter.

After that I'm thinking Buzz with their 3+ automode floor pick up and solid cycling. They had everything needed to be dangerous, and not a team you wanted to play.

But I have to say the CT team that everyone is missing that belongs on this list is 2067 Apple Pi. They have been steadily becoming one of the stronger teams in the state over the last few years and deserve to be recognized for it. Take every thing I said about Buzz and Apple Pi was just a half step behind.

[mdiradoorian]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Can't forget 1662!

696 was good for sure, and this was their best season recently; but they're not top 3 in CA, too many good teams. Top 10 for sure though.

I was being a bit bias but that's normal. I do believe that we are in the top ten in the state.