Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[Pretzel]

Interestingly enough our robot had much more to fix this year between matches than last, and I think no defense had a lot to do with that.

Last year we had a robot that, until our second off-season event (for a total of four), had only one mechanical issue in the form of a broken tank tread. The only reason that we had a second issue was that the loctite holding one of our transmissions onto the frame of the robot broke loose and allowed the screws to back out slightly, causing a catastrophic failure that cut shelves into the gears and destroyed every bearing in the transmission. We had, from the start, anticipated high levels of defense with heavy contact and designed accordingly. Nothing extended outside of our frame at any point in time other than a claw with rollers to grab the ball, which was robustly constructed from 1" x 2" .125" box tubing along with two polycarbonate "fenders" that helped guide the ball and reduce side-impacts. Everything else remained completely contained within our robot frame, including our tank treads, that was constructed of 1" x 2" t-slot extrusion with corner braces. This meant that, once bumpers were installed, the driver could ram into other robots or bump into walls without fear of damaging the robot. Every item on the robot was also designed as simply as possible for the quickest turnaround times if something should break. Our entire catapult/claw assembly was held on with eight bolts, four pneumatic tubes, and one sensor wire and was actually removed between competitions as our withholding allowance to practice and iterate.

This year's robot was a bit of a different story. Our design this year was much more complex to deal with the more specialized requirements (throwing a ball is easier than stacking totes AND handling recycling containers). We had a conveyor belt, a claw, a stacker, and a canburglar that each had its own subtle nuances. For the first time in three years we went back to using wheels and chain for our drivetrain as opposed to tank treads, which was a really nice change to be honest. This robot, however, was fairly often in need of repairs. Due to weight restrictions, we had only 4 mini-CIM's and 2 BAG motors on the robot. The rest of our motors were RS-775's or RS-550's, which would burn out whenever they were stalled for a short period of time in a match or practice. We replaced the 550 in the claw four times before finding the weight to switch it to a BAG motor, and the stacking Raw Box ate up at least 3 775's in testing before PID issues had been sorted out. Our "crowder" rails that we used to center totes on our conveyor belt burned another 3 550's. The claw itself was frequently "tweaked" by the driver when he picked up the recycling containers located near the alliance wall, and the canburglar's CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-off But Arrested Recovery system, really just multiple wraps of surgical tubing around a lever arm with more tubing to dampen the impact upon the can) tore up both the driver's hand while it was being loaded and the gears it was linked to when it was fired on one occasion. This was after a season where the only time a wrench touched the robot was to replace a broken tread that had been improperly tensioned, and it was just due to a shift in the design process. This year we designed for more complex mechanisms as opposed to those that would withstand a hit, and I actually enjoyed the change from a design standpoint. It was the best engineering challenge I've been involved with since I joined FRC, and that includes our 14 second pyramid climber in 2013.

While it was a fun change of pace to design for, I do not think that no defense should happen again in the near future, or at least not in this manner. The lack of robot interaction other than the initial can battles made for a less interesting game to outside observers. Last year we threw exercise balls up to 60 feet in the air, this year we just stacked what appeared to be shipping containers and trash cans. No defense has it's place and I think every FRC student should get to experience a game like this one, but I think a game can still have interaction between opposing alliances without "defense" being involved. A game where the goal is to have as many gamepieces on the opposing side of the field at the end of the match as possible, for example, would provide a no-defense challenge that also ensures an exciting spectator experience.