High Goal Vs. Low Goal

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by adam the great

Actually the current wording of the rules does allow you to safely shoot and score from the outworks if you drive past the outer works and back up so your bumper is overhanging that area and wheels are on the courtyard carpet. I believe you could even backup against a outer works defense and as long as you are touching the courtyard carpet (and only carpet in that zone) you could shoot the ball and not be touched.

Yep. G43, for those of you interested. There are other threads discussing that matter, but the proof is in the pudding. The rule is solid (in that aspect) as of now. [Rule G43 does have other problems that may lead to revision] - mostly with the phrase "attempting to traverse"

[Procolsaurus]

R43 is oddly specific about bumpers. I now agree that there is a band of protected space, the depth of a bumper, from the edge of the COURTYARD going over the ramp of the OUTERWORKS.

I hope it gets clarified by QA.

[coachm]

We've made a different decision than I am seeing here... we've decided to not score high or low goals at all, but focus on speed and defeating all the defense obstacles. Our aim is to be able to deliver boulders to alliance members in the courtyard for goal scoring while breaching the outer works. If we can get the speed factor high enough, we can give our alliance members time to line up high goals and evade defense bots - or chase down missed shots and try again - while we bring them ammunition. If we can succeed, our alliance members will be able to spend more time in the courtyard attacking the tower's strength towards capture, while we focus on breaching the outer works. This strategy will play to our strengths, while presenting a challenge in getting the cycle time low enough to benefit the alliance. Thoughts?

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

We've made a different decision than I am seeing here... we've decided to not score high or low goals at all, but focus on speed and defeating all the defense obstacles. Our aim is to be able to deliver boulders to alliance members in the courtyard for goal scoring while breaching the outer works. If we can get the speed factor high enough, we can give our alliance members time to line up high goals and evade defense bots - or chase down missed shots and try again - while we bring them ammunition. If we can succeed, our alliance members will be able to spend more time in the courtyard attacking the tower's strength towards capture, while we focus on breaching the outer works. This strategy will play to our strengths, while presenting a challenge in getting the cycle time low enough to benefit the alliance. Thoughts?

If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

[audietron]

I am seeing the ability to score high goal as an unnecessary ability unless you have an alliance partner that will bring boulders to the courtyard to shorten time in between cycles. I think an optimal robot is one that is fast at getting over/under all defenses while picking up boulders for quick low goal scoring or just releasing for another team. In quals it can score them while doing the defenses and in elims release them for a team member that can shoot high goals accurately that might take more time but less since they would be in a relatively close position to the tower.

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

If your robot can bring boulders to the courtyard, it is likely that it will be capable of scoring in the low goal. If not, it would likely not take much more effort.

That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by coachm

That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

The drawbridge specifically seems more complicated for a low bot to breach from the front, being 3' high, while everything else is 2' or lower. We've been figuring the drawbridge is so easy from the back, and so much more complicated from the front, that we wouldn't expend much effort on it.

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

That might be true, but for securing purposes, we might choose to house the boulder inside the robot to cross the bumpy obstacles. Plus, low goal is an add on once we achieve our primary goal of crossing ALL the defenses. High goal is "right out", so to speak for us, though. Reality: 7 student members, 43 days, and 9 different obstacles is enough! LOL

I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

I would encourage your team to spend a bit of time thinking of how the number of mechanisms you are using to overcome the Defenses can be reduced. Since you have a small number of students, the extra time invested in thinking about reducing the number of mechanisms you will have to build (and buy materials for) will give greater returns to your team. It is also possible that in this exercise, your team might find a way to acquire and securely house a boulder using this mechanism With the limited resources you have available, it may be advantageous for you to plan on making use of the withholding allowance to buy you time.

Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

Certainly if we can breach defenses we can drive and push boulders into low goals, but only if the alliance members are too busy or unable. Breaching is 40 game pts plus guaranteed RP. Capturing requires 8 boulders (ranging game point combos from 8-40 pts) and only a RP is all three 'bots at least challenge. Especially in early weeks and matches, that is NOT guaranteed!

As for withholding allowance - oh, yes! Definitely!

[philso]

Originally Posted by coachm

Indeed! Right now, we've narrowed it down to 3 motions/appendages and... what the heck with the low bar!... uh... any suggestions?

Certainly if we can breach defenses we can drive and push boulders into low goals, but only if the alliance members are too busy or unable. Breaching is 40 game pts plus guaranteed RP. Capturing requires 8 boulders (ranging game point combos from 8-40 pts) and only a RP is all three 'bots at least challenge. Especially in early weeks and matches, that is NOT guaranteed!

As for withholding allowance - oh, yes! Definitely!

I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

The Low Bar doesn't move either and you either go under it or over it. There is another thread here discussing the robot geometry required to go under it.

Perhaps your team can make cardboard mockups of the Defenses with moving parts and play with different concepts to see if you can reduce the number of mechanisms further. These would not even have to be full-sized. It would be a lot faster than building them following the drawings then finding that you might not have any ideas that are promising.

The following video might give you some ideas too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJREahxuy4Q

[coachm]

Originally Posted by philso

I think that the feeling of many here on CD is that several of the Defenses (the ones with no moving parts) might be defeated with proper drivetrain design so that might get rid of at least one of your mechanisms.

The Low Bar doesn't move either and you either go under it or over it. There is another thread here discussing the robot geometry required to go under it.

Perhaps your team can make cardboard mockups of the Defenses with moving parts and play with different concepts to see if you can reduce the number of mechanisms further. These would not even have to be full-sized. It would be a lot faster than building them following the drawings then finding that you might not have any ideas that are promising.

The following video might give you some ideas too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJREahxuy4Q

Thanks! I agree that a properly researched drivetrain, and ruggedly constructed 'bot will readily knock out 4 of the obstacles. We're kind of thinking 10" wheels - help get up over the wall in particular. Team Indiana on ri3d used the tank treads and they're bouncing all over the place. I am worried about securing the ball. A third row of wheels (not powered necessarily) might help with the cheval de frise, preventing the middle plank from swinging back up to catch the undercarriage and trap the 'bot - just something to be in contact with the ramp and hold it down while we drive over it. That one will take a model, we're building it tomorrow evening, I think. Unfortunately, it's final exams this week so our kids are a little split in their focus. Stupid school schedule, really. Finals AFTER winter hols? What a dumb idea.

[messer5740]

Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by messer5740

Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

You may use no more than approximately 100 lbs of wheels.

Originally Posted by abigailthefox

Always a good idea to keep in mind that the game WILL evolve to high levels of play...so that while a low goal seems quick and easy now, ultimately, reliable high goal scoring will likely become a major force later on. However, if you don't have the time/resources to put into a reliable high goal mechanism, a quick low goal scorer won't win anything alone, but it's better than nothing.

I'm mildly concerned that you're relegating the vast majority of the FIRST community to better than nothing status or presumably worse. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that low goals can also offer a good points scored per effort expended if you can't manage high goals. If your team doesn't have the resources or expertise to make a successful high goal robot, then design within your available resources is the correct engineering decision. Try not to insult insult teams that are making design decisions that are smart and correct for their situation.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by messer5740

Are there any limitations on the number of wheels that we are able to use this year?

That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

That would depend on how much each wheel weighs....

Assume we're talking HotWheels. How many then, do you think?