|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
opps - did we do that ?
Kacz,
No doubt or arguement that the rule would allow a new dimension - I just don't think that the dimension would be of positive value to the FIRST robotics experience. I don't think that a team would intentionally try and damage the opponents robots before they could successfully complete the tasks designed for now would they! But, is the new dimension going to be worth it to the team that gets its controller speared or wiring accidently ripped off of it? Since the time and effort to repair these will essentially be reduced, replacing mangled parts becomes a lot more trouble. I know, now comes the speech about designing the robot to be robust, making sure that bad things can't happen - easier said than done, unless the robots are reduced to wedge bots, and upside down saucers (I think these are how certain robot are made to survive another robot game I've seen on TV). For all the excitement it will add - I think the downside far outweighs it! |
|
#17
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Excellent point!
I still dont agree and most likely will never because of what has happened to previous years robots. Even last years robot (granted it was our fault). If you dont know last year our team created an arm that extended 14feet high and we fell over and smashed our ALumn gear box into aprox 5 pieces. Yet we did rebuild it with help from Chief Delphi (thank you). We also fell over at the same height and bent the arm by falling on the side rail causing some major bending but because of the way we made it the arm survived and is still working today. So if we can do it everyone can! But please lets not fight over this! |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
sorry - no fight intended
Sorry if you took my response as trying to start an arguement - I just wanted to make a point that I thought was overlooked. As in many messages on this board - ALL opinions are welcome.
And I do remember the situation that you mentioned as I was in New Hampshire. Good Luck this year - make the robot "robust" enough to keep it from destroying itself it it falls on itself. Also, watch out for flying soccer balls! |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you very much and good luck to you too!!!
![]() |
|
#21
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Remember the tipping rule? For those that do not remember (how could you forget) or for those who were not yet in FIRST, I will explain.
In 1997 one team was smart enough to figure out that there was no rule against tipping. The rest of us either did not realize this or were too innocent to think it was alright to do it to a fellow competitior. Anyway, this team caused a great stir with their "innovation". It gave them a great advantage to be able to eliminate contenders and just go about their business of scoring unabated. The next year, everyone asked FIRST if this was to be allowed. Many complained and FIRST then realized that many robots would add such a tipping device. The competition would turn into a massacre where many robot would get tipped and lots of bad feelings created. So , they made it illeagal to have any device that had the specific purpose of tipping a robot. Now with this new game, the scoring rules reward you when you can get a robot where it does not want to be. It is no longer just a defensive move to prevent scoring, it is also a potential offensive move that gets you more points. I understand that in the qualifying rounds you want to allow your opponent to get points. But in the elimination rounds, winning is all that counts. Thus grabbing and holding an opponent robot in your home zone not only reduces their score, it also increases yours. You all realize this already. If FIRST thinks that this is OK, then why do they not allow pinning? They realize that two robots stuck in a corner is no fun for anyone. Is it any more fun to be stuck in the middle of the field? If two robots get tangled together accidently, then no big deal. But to do it purposely? Allowing pulling, dragging or lifting robots off the ground to kidnap them to your home zone will lead to a lot of bad feelings (perception of non- gracious professional behavior). Is that what we want? I hope not. |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anyone that tries to pull us is going to get an unpleasant surprise... Ive already started thinking up defensive moves for if someone tries this... our drivers will be preppared!
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Unpleasent surprises ?
John.
If the surprise is that teams create is a stronger puller than the opponent and thats the strategy for defending themselves - I have no problem with that. But, your response brings up a good point that will also need clarification (although I already think I know the answer). If team "A" robot tries to pull team "B" robot and team "B" robot has decided the way to avoid from being pulled is to deploy a mechanism or tactic that will purposely cause harm the pulling robot, is that considered defending themselves and ALLOWABLE? I hope not - |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe we should all just design our robots in such a way grabbing hold of them is very difficult?
Instead of changing this rule make those teams that decide to 'kidnap' sorry for it. Greg |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
meaubry,
No I'm not talking about a defensive mechanism... I don't think that would be legal... but our drivers will be preppared to respond to someone trying to grab us... yes, some of these strategies involve contact, (within the rules) and yes, some of these strategies might accidently damage the transgressor robot... we wouldn't purposely damage another robot, but if they are coming after us, i certainly wouldn't lose sleep over it if we broke something... This entire rule about snagging/pulling frankly scares me... When I'm coaching if I see another robot try to grab my baby that i just spent 6 weeks of my life on... i wont hesitate to tell my drivers to protect themselves... does anyone disagree with this philosophy? |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: WHAT??? CHANGE KIDNAPPING RULE!?!??!? NOOOOOO!
Quote:
*eyes motor stall current data* *eyes 60 amp breaker* *shrug* |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
John - I agree entirely, as I see it defending yourselves can be accomplished 2 ways. 1) fight back or 2) take evasive action - this will be tough to do if you are locked into a corner.
Greg - designing the robots to eliminate handle holds is always the goal - but not always 100% possible. Even when you think you did a great job, someone can accidently find that one $@#$@#$@#$@#$@# in you armor. Like I said before - this is a bad rule and should be changed for the sake of gracious professionalism and FIRST. My last comment on this thread is this - we also are taking extreme measures in design, and materials on this years robot solely to address this one issue. It really takes away from solving the problem of "How to play this game" - and thats too bad, because we also have to address this issue with the students and even discussing strategy leads to a disproportionate aggressive stance - I like offense - scoring is always more fun to watch than a 2 minute tug of war. Good luck to all - and keep your grab handles covered! |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
*throws 60 amp breaker out the window* ![]() |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
If someone decides to kidnap our robot they will have not only a surprise but some minor fractures in the frame due to excessive force on a small point. But this device is not like a "Battle Bot" type device but rather an innovation using a drive train. Did I say to much? Or did I confuse you?
|
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How much planning goes into your robot? | Jnadke | General Forum | 41 | 29-01-2006 21:29 |
| WASH Palm scouting at the Championship | Mike Soukup | Scouting | 2 | 19-04-2002 15:14 |
| Fork Lift Robot | tinyfarnsworth | General Forum | 64 | 16-04-2002 12:09 |
| Index of team's post about their robot... | Ken Leung | Robot Showcase | 1 | 20-03-2002 17:10 |
| about how Drive Train push the robot... shouldn't the force accelerate the robot? | Ken Leung | Technical Discussion | 12 | 26-11-2001 09:39 |