Astronomically High Scores at Silicon Valley

[waialua359]

I thought 1114 had the fastest tote pickup, and then RoboStang 548. Looks like 254 gets thrown in the mix.
With Week 6 showing off some high scores at various regionals, looks like Champs is going to much much better than I thought.........by a mile.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I thought 1114 had the fastest tote pickup, and then RoboStang 548. Looks like 254 gets thrown in the mix.
With Week 6 showing off some high scores at various regionals, looks like Champs is going to much much better than I thought.........by a mile.

I can't wait to see what MSC will be like!

[Kevin Ray]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I thought 1114 had the fastest tote pickup, and then RoboStang 548. Looks like 254 gets thrown in the mix.
With Week 6 showing off some high scores at various regionals, looks like Champs is going to much much better than I thought.........by a mile.

The interesting thing here is that these penultimate teams now have a greater likelihood of going against each other than with each other with the additional 4 divisions. After seeing 1114 in action first hand, I was positive that no one could beat the robot/driver combo, now I'm not so sure. With the one seed usually picking the two seed there's enough very good teams to make for a great playoffs at both the divisions and Einstein. I can't wait. I didn't think this year was going to be too exciting...and, I was wrong again.

[Ubiquity]

I am not sure but I believe 254 scored 254 at least two times at SVR. thier average qualifier was 200. Next highest was ~150 by 1678. Difference was a 6 stack vs a 5 stack. Ended up 1 and 2 vs 3 and 4, and camps and finalists were pretty much as expected. It still was exciting. I think at least one finals match had six bin capped stacks. Champion alliance 254, 1678, 5027. Finalists 2085, 971, 649.

All are Nationals qualified. 5027 was modified to be a bin grabber for the last semifinal and 2 final matches. They got two in the semi, at 1 in the first final, but even though they lost a tug of war with 971, that 'bin got stuck on 971's arm, and slowed them up for the rest of the match.

[Ginger Power]

254 is so good they can score 254 points at will.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

254 is so good they can score 254 points at will.

They didn't seem to throw any litter, so it seemed like they were gunning for the 254 score. Poetic.

[audietron]

My question is what are the rollers on the ramp and how does the ramp not slide very much during the match or bounce when it is tipped over. Does anyone have a good picture of it?

[Steven670]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

They didn't seem to throw any litter, so it seemed like they were gunning for the 254 score. Poetic.

In one match they just stopped at 254 points and sat waiting for the clock to run down.

254's ramp looked like it used ball bearing rollers. I would have been more impressed if they hadn't totally ignored rule T6. They just had one guy carrying the ramp separately. I guess if the rule doesn't have a penalty it doesn't exist. There was one time that the ramp ended up with its outer end back at the wall. I didn't see if it fell wrong or got pushed. 254 didn't even try to get the totes off it, they just mined the landfill.

Another thing I wondered about was the stack(s) the tether was touching at the end of the match. You can't really see it in the videos. The refs weren't checking if the tether was supporting the totes. Judging from the blue box in the game manual the stack(s) should have been de-scored. They definitely weren't doing that. If they did, it could really hurt 254, as it is tough to control such a long tether.

Still, the Poofs were way ahead of of everyone else. 1678 couldn't do as many stacks and probably messed up more often. 971 had a jamming problem getting totes from the human player. 368 had a lot of trouble with their 3 tote autonomous, although they seemed to get it working in the later matches. They also had problems with mis-fed totes. 846's ramp tended to jam and they had a lot of problems with stacks falling over.

Our own robot (670) amazed me with its reliability. We improved more since the CVR than 254 did, with about 3x the scoring. The only real blemish was when the drive team decided to try to do a six stack with bin instead of our usual five stack in the semifinals and it fell over because it was too heavy. They really should have tried that on the practice field first... We were only fighting over 3rd vs. 4th place anyway. We were too slow to make it into the finals.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by Steven670

In one match they just stopped at 254 points and sat waiting for the clock to run down.

Because we didn't want to risk knocking over any stacks just for another 12 points. With 6 full stacks and 15 seconds left on the clock going for another 6 totes when the landfill and HP stations are both almost empty is just asking for trouble.

254's ramp looked like it used ball bearing rollers. I would have been more impressed if they hadn't totally ignored rule T6. They just had one guy carrying the ramp separately. I guess if the rule doesn't have a penalty it doesn't exist.

The blue box on T6 clarifies this quite well, they put the ramp inside the robot when no one was carrying it so it definitely fit in transport config. Several other teams also transported their robots pre-assembled. Refs have been told to encourage teams to do this to speed up field reset times.

Another thing I wondered about was the stack(s) the tether was touching at the end of the match. You can't really see it in the videos. The refs weren't checking if the tether was supporting the totes. Judging from the blue box in the game manual the stack(s) should have been de-scored. They definitely weren't doing that. If they did, it could really hurt 254, as it is tough to control such a long tether.

A stack is scored if it is supported completely by only the scoring platform, if their tether was supporting the stack it wouldn't be scored, but it would be pretty apparent when their tether was under it as the stack would get knocked over when they tried to drive away from it. I trust the refs that they were well aware of this.

Our own robot (670) amazed me with its reliability. We improved more since the CVR than 254 did, with about 3x the scoring. The only real blemish was when the drive team decided to try to do a six stack with bin instead of our usual five stack in the semifinals and it fell over because it was too heavy. They really should have tried that on the practice field first... We were only fighting over 3rd vs. 4th place anyway. We were too slow to make it into the finals.

No need to put down others when applauding your own accomplishments. 254 went from 2 stacks at CVR to hitting 4 stacks plus co-op with time left over at the end of every match reliably; bumping their qual average from 104 to 200 since CVR. If that's not impressive improvement I don't know what is.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Also I didn't look that closely but I don't think they're ramp had any bearings on it, I'm pretty sure the totes just slid down. They made it as light as possible and bearings probably would have added more weight than allowable, they are very close to 120lbs at the moment.

They do use bearings for their ramp, either 0.500 or 0.625 OD mounted via 3/16 pop rivets. The frame is a carbon fiber tube with aluminum ribs and aluminum tubing.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Steven670

254's ramp looked like it used ball bearing rollers. I would have been more impressed if they hadn't totally ignored rule T6. They just had one guy carrying the ramp separately. I guess if the rule doesn't have a penalty it doesn't exist.

Thanks for assuming we were cheating, but if you had asked you would have found out the inspectors and refs decided teams should demonstrate that they can establish a compliant transportation configuration, but in the interests of saving time during setup should bring the robot on in it's starting configuration.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Cory

Thanks for assuming we were cheating, but if you had asked you would have found out the inspectors and refs decided teams should demonstrate that they can establish a compliant transportation configuration, but in the interests of saving time during setup should bring the robot on in it's starting configuration.

And that has been happening since the first week when they found out that trying to follow the rule slowed down the competition schedule too much. All of the other competitions have has the starting configuration set up since.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

And that has been happening since the first week when they found out that trying to follow the rule slowed down the competition schedule too much. All of the other competitions have has the starting configuration set up since.

Actually not accurate to state all other competitions have had the starting configuration set up allowed prior to reaching the field. At the LVR, we could NOT do so as the head referee decided to adhere to the letter of the rule...though as a member of the planning committee I tried to talk him into the "relaxation" of the rule since so many events had reported doing so in prior weeks. It was decided that we would wait and see if we were having trouble maintaining a reasonable cycle time. As it turned out we managed to stay on time and stayed within the rule. The question now is what will the practice be at Champs? It would be nice if FIRST would address this issue and all of us enter the event with the same expectations.

[TikiTech]

Originally Posted by JB987

Actually not accurate to state all other competitions have had the starting configuration set up allowed prior to reaching the field. At the LVR, we could NOT do so as the head referee decided to adhere to the letter of the rule...though as a member of the planning committee I tried to talk him into the "relaxation" of the rule since so many events had reported doing so in prior weeks. It was decided that we would wait and see if we were having trouble maintaining a reasonable cycle time. As it turned out we managed to stay on time and stayed within the rule. The question now is what will the practice be at Champs? It would be nice if FIRST would address this issue and all of us enter the event with the same expectations.

Agreed,

At the Hawaii Regional the transport configuration was required. Our team learned to quickly install and tear down our lift arms.

A few quiet verbal warnings might have been given. Well more like mentions on the loud speaker letting the audience know what the teams were up to before and after each match to comply with the transport rules.

Every team managed to comply without penalties.

Although after going to a much larger event I saw how much time was saved.

At the champs with so many variations and possible factory bots, I hope they do require the transport configuration. It was part of the design process that kept many elaborate designs shelved.

Looking forward to the championships!

Aloha

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by JB987

Actually not accurate to state all other competitions have had the starting configuration set up allowed prior to reaching the field. At the LVR, we could NOT do so as the head referee decided to adhere to the letter of the rule...though as a member of the planning committee I tried to talk him into the "relaxation" of the rule since so many events had reported doing so in prior weeks. It was decided that we would wait and see if we were having trouble maintaining a reasonable cycle time. As it turned out we managed to stay on time and stayed within the rule. The question now is what will the practice be at Champs? It would be nice if FIRST would address this issue and all of us enter the event with the same expectations.

Same, at Utah we were required to enter the field in transport configuration, then after the match, go back into transport on the field, or sometimes in a rush you were allowed to do so immediately off the field. At Lone Star we weren't required to go into transport if it was safe to configure in the queue.