Defensive wedge done differently

[Woolly]

Your way of going about it is interesting, though the way I'd achieve what you're talking about its putting what amounts to putting a deployable jack just behind the corners of the frame with plaction tread on the plates that contact the ground. The thought being that you want to get as much of your robot's weight on the highest-traction surface you can.
That and it would just be useful to have built-in jacks on the robot for testing autonomous and such (just have a DIO on the driver-station determine whether the jacks are engaged or not during autonomous)

It's definitely something that we've even thrown around, and worth testing.

[Team3266Spencer]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Your way of going about it is interesting, though the way I'd achieve what you're talking about its putting what amounts to putting a deployable jack just behind the corners of the frame with plaction tread on the plates that contact the ground. The thought being that you want to get as much of your robot's weight on the highest-traction surface you can.
That and it would just be useful to have built-in jacks on the robot for testing autonomous and such (just have a DIO on the driver-station determine whether the jacks are engaged or not during autonomous)

It's definitely something that we've even thrown around, and worth testing.

I like the sounds of that. Do you think it would be beneficial to solely support the robot with a jack on both sides of the drivetrain (assuming there's 2 sides) or just in the front or back, etc?

[Woolly]

Originally Posted by Team3266Spencer

I like the sounds of that. Do you think it would be beneficial to solely support the robot with a jack on both sides of the drivetrain (assuming there's 2 sides) or just in the front or back, etc?

Depends on how your frame perimeter. If you put jacks along the sides of the robot, they should be on the longer sides to be the most effective, as surface area is key.

Depending on how much traction you can get without damaging the carpet, it might work either way. A lot of robots that are geared low and have a 4CIM drive right now are capable of pushing with ~200-225 pounds of force. I'd find a good force gauge and see how much it takes to move it and try different tread and add surface area until you're satisfied. Also be sure to weight whatever test platform you use to a realistic robot weight (including bumpers and battery) if it isn't there already.

[Team3266Spencer]

My only opposition to the jack strategy, as opposed to a wedge, is you would be unable to push back if your robot was completely jacked off of the ground.

[Woolly]

Originally Posted by Team3266Spencer

My only opposition to the jack strategy, as opposed to a wedge, is you would be unable to push back if your robot was completely jacked off of the ground.

Well, if you're running a mecanum drive you wouldn't be able to push back anyway. With most drivetrains, your best option might be the wedge setup, but keep in mind that you have to overcome the same traction your defender has to overcome to push you to move. Honestly, if you're interested in that setup, I'd look into a butterfly drive or octocanum setup, but that involves deploying wheels which you stated in your OP post you didn't want to have to deal with at the moment.

[Team3266Spencer]

Thank you for the insight, this will be helpful when the team is designing in the coming season, and will give us some ideas to prototype beforehand.

[Dragonking]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Well, if you're running a mecanum drive you wouldn't be able to push back anyway. With most drivetrains, your best option might be the wedge setup, but keep in mind that you have to overcome the same traction your defender has to overcome to push you to move. Honestly, if you're interested in that setup, I'd look into a butterfly drive or octocanum setup, but that involves deploying wheels which you stated in your OP post you didn't want to have to deal with at the moment.

But if you can't push back, the defense is still doing its job by keeping you in place. Especially if you are one of the top scorers. If you aren't, defense shouldn't be a problem anyways

[evanperryg]

If you want to get away from defenders, the first thing is a good driver. Watch 118 in match 60 of IRI this year. Our shooter got bent up after hitting 2468(that's what happens when you run into a wall of metal) so we had to play defence for the rest of the match. 217 and us were both defending 118, and they managed to get through us in a matter of seconds.

[Team3266Spencer]

Originally Posted by Dragonking

But if you can't push back, the defense is still doing its job by keeping you in place. Especially if you are one of the top scorers. If you aren't, defense shouldn't be a problem anyways

The goal is to use the stilts to play defense ourself, and an agile drivetrain to play offense.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Team3266Spencer

The goal is to use the stilts to play defense ourself, and an agile drivetrain to play offense.

A sensible and common goal. But I'd suggest watching some more match footage from as many different games as you can, as this goal doesn't really align with reality all that often.

While a mechanical brake will help you maintain position, in most cases there's enough room for a skilled offensive robot to avoid a fixed obstacle (like a team braked in position). Occassionally there are chokepoints (like next to the pyramids this year or the tunnel in 2010), but there are usually other options (under the pyramid this year or over the bumps in 2010) and most of the best offensive robots are capable of using those. If anyting, a braking device will be most helpful for maintaining offensive positioning during a lengthy scoring process in an unprotected area (such as most teams scoring tetras in 2005, tubes in 2007, or a bunch of balls in a single load in 2006).

Similarly, the concept a omni-directional offensive robot seems like it would more difficult to defend, but reality tends to disagree. Unless you have the option of goals in multiple directions (2005), the general path the offensive robot is going to take is predictable, regardless of how many different directions the robot can travel. A smart defender is usually able to position themselves between the offensive robot and their destination and force the offensive machine into at least some contact (a scenario that does not benefit mecanum or omni wheels). If you want to avoid this contact, the solution is typically having a higher acceleration and better drivers than the defender.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

A sensible and common goal. But I'd suggest watching some more match footage from as many different games as you can, as this goal doesn't really align with reality all that often.

While a mechanical brake will help you maintain position, in most cases there's enough room for a skilled offensive robot to avoid a fixed obstacle (like a team braked in position). Occassionally there are chokepoints (like next to the pyramids this year or the tunnel in 2010), but there are usually other options (under the pyramid this year or over the bumps in 2010) and most of the best offensive robots are capable of using those. If anyting, a braking device will be most helpful for maintaining offensive positioning during a lengthy scoring process in an unprotected area (such as most teams scoring tetras in 2005, tubes in 2007, or a bunch of balls in a single load in 2006).

Similarly, the concept a omni-directional offensive robot seems like it would more difficult to defend, but reality tends to disagree. Unless you have the option of goals in multiple directions (2005), the general path the offensive robot is going to take is predictable, regardless of how many different directions the robot can travel. A smart defender is usually able to position themselves between the offensive robot and their destination and force the offensive machine into at least some contact (a scenario that does not benefit mecanum or omni wheels). If you want to avoid this contact, the solution is typically having a higher acceleration and better drivers than the defender.

Building off of this, a smart defender knows full well that they don't need to stop their victim.They must merely slow them down enough that their scoring output is lowered past the potential scoring output of the defender during that time. Otherwise the defense is not effective.

The alternate option is that your job as defender is to disrupt the pattern of the opposing drivers. However, a skilled driver can factor a static obstacle into their pattern and work around it. Example: Most cyclers this year had a path they liked to take from feed to fire. Disrupting this path would slow them down as they then had to reorient themselves and find other reference points to line up for. A static obstacle (braked robot) is pretty useless.

Additionally, I would assert that the moment the opposing robot hits you you've done a good deal as the defender. Why? momentum is important. If I can force a robot to have to accelerate up to speed again I am delaying them far more than the contact time. Plotting your offensive routes such that you cross their typical paths before they do and force their drivers to slow down to avoid you means you can play offense while still denying paths to your opponents.

TL;DR - Less man to man defense more zone defense.

(I seriously hope any of that made sense)

[Kevin Leonard]

A mechanical brake could have been applied this year to help defend full-court shooters. Get into place in front of them, then apply the mechanical brake to prevent an enforcer from pushing you out of the way.
This kind of makes me think we had thought of that for IRI when we tried to defend HOT in our first qual match. We could have blocked them, and not broken our drivetrain. It would have been so much better.
But looking at this game at kickoff day, I never would have thought a mechanical brake could be useful at all.
In 2012 fender shooters could have used them to stay in place.
In 2010, blocking the tunnel and/or a goal.
In 2007 for scoring on the rack.

But clearly it's not made for every game, or even for every role in every game.
I think I'll keep this "defensive wedge-brake-thing" in mind when kickoff day comes.

[Team3266Spencer]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

A sensible and common goal. But I'd suggest watching some more match footage from as many different games as you can, as this goal doesn't really align with reality all that often.

While a mechanical brake will help you maintain position, in most cases there's enough room for a skilled offensive robot to avoid a fixed obstacle (like a team braked in position). Occassionally there are chokepoints (like next to the pyramids this year or the tunnel in 2010), but there are usually other options (under the pyramid this year or over the bumps in 2010) and most of the best offensive robots are capable of using those. If anyting, a braking device will be most helpful for maintaining offensive positioning during a lengthy scoring process in an unprotected area (such as most teams scoring tetras in 2005, tubes in 2007, or a bunch of balls in a single load in 2006).

Similarly, the concept a omni-directional offensive robot seems like it would more difficult to defend, but reality tends to disagree. Unless you have the option of goals in multiple directions (2005), the general path the offensive robot is going to take is predictable, regardless of how many different directions the robot can travel. A smart defender is usually able to position themselves between the offensive robot and their destination and force the offensive machine into at least some contact (a scenario that does not benefit mecanum or omni wheels). If you want to avoid this contact, the solution is typically having a higher acceleration and better drivers than the defender.

Well in that case it will be a great offensive benefit. Nevertheless I think the idea has potential and I'd like to prototype some variations before next season and maybe one will be a viable option when we know what the game is. Thank you for the advice.