900's Championship Cheesecaking Chronicles

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I would like to say a few things here to answer items that have come up in the last page.
In the past, if a team broke down, the alliance was forced to accept the next team in the list as a partner. If another robot broke, the next robot in line was brought up. With the current structure, an alliance now gets to chose their relief which allows them to plan strategy a little better. If more than one robot breaks, the alliance must play with what ever is left of the alliance. It is a tradeoff that most teams gladly accept. Personally, I saw the chance with the old method that more than three or four teams could share in the hardware. Please note, it is the alliance that shares regardless of how many teams actually play. The unplayed alliance team still is (should) be included in alliance decisions, successes and failures.

Team 900 and 1114 (and all teams on Einstein) played the game as designed, using the rules as any great strategist should. Have you not listened to the various strategy (cough Karthik cough) seminars? It does not matter really whether you like the rules or not, those that win, play with the rules they are given.

The robot built/rebuilt by Team 900 contained parts of their robot that was initially inspected at the 2015 Championship and was found to be legal to compete under the Robot and Tournament rules.

Inspectors were assigned to stay with the team while they worked in the pit and as the picture(s) show above, many additional inspectors were present to assist inspection behind the Einstein pits. The alliance was very cooperative in getting through this process.

The four assemblies collectively weighed around 80 pounds so the control platform had to be modified to make weight. I believe when accurately totaled, the time period was likely longer than the seven hours stated. I was brought in to check progress and review the design somewhere in the middle of the process, likely around 3:00 PM on Friday.

While the design looks scary, imposing and possibly dangerous, I can assure it was not. The team had done considerable design work to provide safety, backup systems and limits to travel. The strings visible in the video are more for travel limit than for retrieval. The only concern for me occurs during loading the darts. I had a long discussion with the pit crew and drive team on this subject. We were able to come to an acceptable method that would protect all participants and minimize any accidents. The alliance also fully understood the risks should contact be made with anything on the opposite side of the field or outside of the field boundary.

No one should question the decisions teams make to give what they think is anything less than a spectacular experience to their students. In looking back I can only hope that my involvement gave something positive to the students (and mentors) I worked with. I felt we were a team working towards a common goal. Please let me know if there was anything I could have done better. I expect that all of the inspectors, Ed Sparks, Chuck Dickerson, Ken Platteschore, Jon Stratis, and Matt Mitag (working from the picture earlier) and any of the inspectors back in the pits feel the same way.

While I am more conservative than most, I still want to see it fire in competition. IRI???

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by jaustinpage

That is a 1114 question, it would be presumptuous of me to post something like that. (Although, in years past, 1114 has posted cad here: http://www.simbotics.org/resources/cad)

A bit surprised you guys feel that way. If you don't want to post it, thats a different story, but this design and implementation was a very collaborative effort by your own standards. You shouldn't think it presumptuous of you to post something like that in my opinion because by working so hard on it, it is equally yours.

Does it belong to you as much as them? I can't speak for 1114 but I would be interested to see if they feel the same way I do.

Regardless, if you/your team do not want to post, thats an okay decision, I just think you should be making it on your own behalf, not on behalf of another team.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Sam Slade

I am, however, a little concerned with what "cheesecaking" may become. Are we going to continue down this path to the point at which a team simply builds three robots and slaps their partners' numbers on them for the match?Again, I am not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. I am simply wondering what the future holds.

I can't speak for others, but personally I feel that a lot of the "cheasecaking" had to do with the game this year. We knew on day 1 of build season that the matches would (99% of the time) be decided within the first few seconds by who could grab the cans first.

That being said, we also knew that there was absolutely no way that "can burgler" without the ability to then place the cans on stacks would have let us win the regionals we attend. We made the choice to build the robot we would need to (hopefully) succeed at regionals.

That robot was definitely not up to the task at Championships. Not only was it mechanically flakey (we had to replace the output shafts of the motors nearly every match which involved removing the entire arm. Just ask AndyMark how much we abused their products this year!), but we knew it wasn't fast enough.

Even before knowing which field we were going to be on, we had discussed leaving the arm at home and building something new to put on the robot for Championships. It was eventually decided that we should keep the arm, we wanted to see the autonomous with vision we had worked so hard on.

Overall, I think that there are two main benefits that came out of this.
First, our students were inspired, they got to work with some other teams very closely to accomplish a very very impressive engineering feat.
Second, we got to meet and work with 1114, 148 and 1923. We hope that we will have a lasting relationship with them for years to come. As we continue to grow as a team, having these contacts we can ask for advice and as a guide for how we can help improve our team will be invaluable. I can't wait to see them at worlds next year! Also, meeting Libby was awesome! We are super proud to be part of Team Unither and we hope to grow those bonds and be able to work more closely with them in the future!

Sorry for the long ramble-y post

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I would like to say a few things here to answer items that have come up in the last page.
In the past, if a team broke down, the alliance was forced to accept the next team in the list as a partner. If another robot broke, the next robot in line was brought up. With the current structure, an alliance now gets to chose their relief which allows them to plan strategy a little better. If more than one robot breaks, the alliance must play with what ever is left of the alliance. It is a tradeoff that most teams gladly accept. Personally, I saw the chance with the old method that more than three or four teams could share in the hardware. Please note, it is the alliance that shares regardless of how many teams actually play. The unplayed alliance team still is (should) be included in alliance decisions, successes and failures.

Team 900 and 1114 (and all teams on Einstein) played the game as designed, using the rules as any great strategist should. Have you not listened to the various strategy (cough Karthik cough) seminars? It does not matter really whether you like the rules or not, those that win, play with the rules they are given.

The robot built/rebuilt by Team 900 contained parts of their robot that was initially inspected at the 2015 Championship and was found to be legal to compete under the Robot and Tournament rules.

Inspectors were assigned to stay with the team while they worked in the pit and as the picture(s) show above, many additional inspectors were present to assist inspection behind the Einstein pits. The alliance was very cooperative in getting through this process.

The four assemblies collectively weighed around 80 pounds so the control platform had to be modified to make weight. I believe when accurately totaled, the time period was likely longer than the seven hours stated. I was brought in to check progress and review the design somewhere in the middle of the process, likely around 3:00 PM on Friday.

While the design looks scary, imposing and possibly dangerous, I can assure it was not. The team had done considerable design work to provide safety, backup systems and limits to travel. The strings visible in the video are more for travel limit than for retrieval. The only concern for me occurs during loading the darts. I had a long discussion with the pit crew and drive team on this subject. We were able to come to an acceptable method that would protect all participants and minimize any accidents. The alliance also fully understood the risks should contact be made with anything on the opposite side of the field or outside of the field boundary.

No one should question the decisions teams make to give what they think is anything less than a spectacular experience to their students. In looking back I can only hope that my involvement gave something positive to the students (and mentors) I worked with. I felt we were a team working towards a common goal. Please let me know if there was anything I could have done better. I expect that all of the inspectors, Ed Sparks, Chuck Dickerson, Chris Paulik, Jon Stratis, Matt Mitag and Jeff Pahl feel the same way.

While I am more conservative than most, I still want to see it fire in competition.

Al, you're amazing. I'm not sure if I had the opportunity to shake your hand but I can tell you that the inspectors working with my students behind the curtain (literal curtain behind the Einstein fields) made a huge impression on them. Thank you!

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Chinmay

A bit surprised you guys feel that way. If you don't want to post it, thats a different story, but this design and implementation was a very collaborative effort by your own standards. You shouldn't think it presumptuous of you to post something like that in my opinion because by working so hard on it, it is equally yours.

Does it belong to you as much as them? I can't speak for 1114 but I would be interested to see if they feel the same way I do.

Regardless, if you/your team do not want to post, thats an okay decision, I just think you should be making it on your own behalf, not on behalf of another team.

Knowing my colleague as I do, he was simply saying that we just need to confer with our awesome alliance partners before we post anything. It is a shared setup after all.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I simply struggle with the chosen game strategy.

Then fault the GDC and FIRST for allowing it, not the teams operating within the rules.

Haters gonna hate, Cheesers gonna cake.

I love the harpoons. Hopefully we will see them in action at IRI

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Marshall, it is all I can ask of them. I shook a lot of hands last week, chances are pretty good, yours were one of them.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by marshall

Knowing my colleague as I do, he was simply saying that we just need to confer with our awesome alliance partners before we post anything. It is a shared setup after all.

Agreed, it is a shared setup, and you should discuss with 1114. Make sure not to completely defer to them, as I think your colleague may have implied in his post. It is not presumptuous of him to own that work. He worked hard on it, and it is as much your as theirs.

[George Nishimura]

I admit that I really wanted to see the harpoons in action on the field, fully working. I think it's an amazing idea.

From an engineering perspective, I think it's impressive if a team came out from a six week build season with it, let alone a 7ish hour time period. Well done to all that contributed, I remember walking past it in the pits and being amazed!

From an educational perspective, I think it must be incredibly inspiring to work closely alongside teams such as 1114 and 148.

However, from a sporting/competition perspective, I think it's a dangerous precedent that should be discouraged in some way.

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

Then fault the GDC and FIRST for allowing it, not the teams operating within the rules.

They tried to ban it. It just happens to be an incredibly difficult thing to outlaw and had to leave it as a loophole.

[steelerborn]

Just would like to say that I think that all 4 members of an alliance (no matter the amount of play time) get to share in the winnings.

I have a lot of respect 148 (one of my favorite teams), 1114, 1923, and 900. Karthik and Libby are both great mentors that do so much for their team and the FIRST community.

Watching that last semi-final match was insane I was on the edge of my seat. I think MrJohnston also made some points that I feel are correct. Recycle Rush at its core was a game of consistency. I am personally not a fan of telling robots to sit and just wait for the end of the game (especially since this year there was no defense, or endgame. Finding a job was more challenging).

Just food for thought if 1923 had put up 1 tote in teleop, in each SF match, you would have a different set of world champions right now. That is just one tote a match, I would trust almost any team this year with that task. Even if they spent the whole match doing just that 1 tote. It still is a contribution that would have made a huge difference. And after watching 1923 this year I am sure they could have done this easily.

In the end it was just a poor strategy decision, but from reading all of the posts from 900, 1923, and 1114 it sounds like the kids had a blast being there, learning from some great teams, and were able to make some great memories which is what FIRST is all about. Great job all around

[ice.berg]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Team 900 and 1114 (and all teams on Einstein) played the game as designed, using the rules as any great strategist should. Have you not listened to the various strategy (cough Karthik cough) seminars? It does not matter really whether you like the rules or not, those that win, play with the rules they are given.

This snippet caught my attention.

First, our team are HUGE supporters of Karthik's strategy seminars. We base much of our strategy department on them. EVERY team can learn something from them.

Second, if teams don't play the rules they are given I think they are doing themselves a big disservice. This is the fun in FIRST to me. FIRST is about pushing the boundaries of engineering. Many times the teams who are successful are the ones playing in unconventional ways.

Every single team has the same rules to follow.

Last Thing:
Only speaking for myself and not our alliance but I really really wanted to see 900 play on Einstein. Not sure if we would have beaten them in the can war or not but I just wanted to see those harpoons. Crazy Idea that I thought was totally awesome. Big props to that whole alliance.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Chinmay

Agreed, it is a shared setup, and you should discuss with 1114. Make sure not to completely defer to them, as I think your colleague may have implied in his post. It is not presumptuous of him to own that work. He worked hard on it, and it is as much your as theirs.

Clearly you have never met anyone on our team . We are some of the most stubborn people I've ever met. Makes for some fascinating team dynamics! The statement was definitely to respect 1114's interest in the project as well.

Originally Posted by steelerborn

Just food for thought if 1923 had put up 1 tote in teleop, in each SF match, you would have a different set of world champions right now. That is just one tote a match, I would trust almost any team this year with that task. Even if they spent the whole match doing just that 1 tote. It still is a contribution that would have made a huge difference. And after watching 1923 this year I am sure they could have done this easily.

In the end it was just a poor strategy decision, but from reading all of the posts from 900, 1923, and 1114 it sounds like the kids had a blast being there, learning from some great teams, and were able to make some great memories which is what FIRST is all about. Great job all around

I disagree with this. As 1923 has already said, they were less reliable loading their robot without their ramp (which they couldn't have and can burgle). Since 148 got nearly all of the bins stacked from the HP station, it is definitely possible that the totes falling sideways out of the feeder station trying to feed them to 1923 would have actually decreased the number available to 148 and would have meant less points for the alliance. With the close quarters and not being able to see, there was also a higher risk of knocking over stacks. As has been previously said by the teams, the alliances discussed the possibility of having 1923 stack and decided as a group that it was a higher risk than they were willing to take. I have the utmost respect for 1923 for being able to make that decision and put the needs of the alliance above their desire to stack themselves

[steelerborn]

Originally Posted by meg

I disagree with this. As 1923 has already said, they were less reliable loading their robot without their ramp (which they couldn't have and can burgle). Since 148 got nearly all of the bins stacked from the HP station, it is definitely possible that the totes falling sideways out of the feeder station trying to feed them to 1923 would have actually decreased the number available to 148 and would have meant less points for the alliance. With the close quarters and not being able to see, there was also a higher risk of knocking over stacks. As has been previously said by the teams, the alliances discussed the possibility of having 1923 stack and decided as a group that it was a higher risk than they were willing to take. I have the utmost respect for 1923 for being able to make that decision and put the needs of the alliance above their desire to stack themselves

I never said that the strategy was not decided as a group. I am sure 900, 1923, 1114, and 148 all had long discussions about the strategy together especially with 900 getting up and running with the cheesecake. All the teams I know have great drivers, students, and mentors

I was saying that no stack needed to be made, even if they just dropped in one tote (from the other feeder station, opposite of Robin) and pushed it up onto the scoring platform (even if it was sideways). That would have been all they needed in the match. I think 148 would have been okay with having just one tote less. It was hard to tell but did they ever drain the human stations by themselves? And I know that it is easy to see what could have happened once the event is done and over with. But I was just showing how such a small strategical decision could have a big outcome.

[meg]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

It was hard to tell but did they ever drain the human stations by themselves? And I know that it is easy to see what could have happened once the event is done and over with. But I was just showing how such a small strategical decision could have a big outcome.

I believe they were constantly within a few totes of the human stations being cleared by themselves. And the likelihood that a single tote would land sideways/upside down was not negligible.

[steelerborn]

If the tote fell sideways it still would have been fine just push it right up onto the scoring platform. Spend the whole match making sure that at least one tote was scored. That is all I was saying.