Low bar or not

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

We were faced with this decision early this week.

It was low bar or scale.

Essentially our scaling mechanism did not fit under the low bar (A large cylinder on an articulating shaft. We even went as far to have this manufactured.
http://imgur.com/r8dtvma

We looked at it this way
No low bar = loss of 10pts
No climb = loss of 10pts

But there are other advantages of the low bar including easier autonomous and faster cycle times. So, we decided to forget that climber.

Key word is that.

Since it was only the Monday of week 4 we decided to R&D a new climber in a day. We came up with a telescoping PVC design that deployed a hook.

We are also in talk of making the old climber some extreme cheesecake. I cheesecake worth a couple hundred dollars.

How is the low bar worth 10pts?

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

How is the low bar worth 10pts?

Well its instantly worth 10pts for us in auto as its really the easiest defense to cross without throwing off all of our sensors and, crossing the defense twice is 10pts.

Effectively 20 possible points.

However, it is very likely another robot will be low bar capable so we took 5 points off. And, its also likely we can do an auto while breaching obstacles like rough terrain, ramparts, the moat, and the rock wall so we knocked down another 5 points.

It is not the most scientific way of thinking but imo its a decent rationalization of the point values up for grabs.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Well its instantly worth 10pts for us in auto as its really the easiest defense to cross without throwing off all of our sensors and, crossing the defense twice is 10pts.

Effectively 20 possible points.

However, it is very likely another robot will be low bar capable so we took 5 points off. And, its also likely we can do an auto while breaching obstacles like rough terrain, ramparts, the moat, and the rock wall so we knocked down another 5 points.

It is not the most scientific way of thinking but imo its a decent rationalization of the point values up for grabs.

Actually, the MAX you can get out of the low bar is 15 points (solo, at any rate). You can't get crossing points twice in auto. One auto, one telop, after that it's Damaged and no more points are awarded.

But yes, I see how you're thinking. I kind of like that line of thought.

[anishde]

Our team decided to combine the best of both worlds, and create a robot that fits under the low bar, but unfolds upward to shoot and climb. So far, our clearance beneath the low bar is less than an inch, which is very problematic. It doesn't look like we're going to scrap the low design, for the simple sake of going underneath the low bar, but might have to alter some other mechanisms to gain that ability.

[Joe G.]

If you are making this decision at this point in the season, the answer is no. If you were making it earlier, the answer is maybe.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by anishde

Our team decided to combine the best of both worlds, and create a robot that fits under the low bar, but unfolds upward to shoot and climb. So far, our clearance beneath the low bar is less than an inch, which is very problematic. It doesn't look like we're going to scrap the low design, for the simple sake of going underneath the low bar, but might have to alter some other mechanisms to gain that ability.

Are you an inch under 16, or an inch under 14? The low bar is located at the neutral zone end of the defense, which means that you will need to be significantly shorter than 16 inches on your leading edge as you pass under hte low bar.

(I use the term leading because we have tried to eschew use of front and back for our robot. It will cross different defenses in different directions. We have a boulder launch that projects the boulder at the high goal from the opposite end of the pickup. Our robot ends are "pickup" and "launch" rather than "front" and "back".

[anishde]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Are you an inch under 16, or an inch under 14? The low bar is located at the neutral zone end of the defense, which means that you will need to be significantly shorter than 16 inches on your leading edge as you pass under hte low bar.

(I use the term leading because we have tried to eschew use of front and back for our robot. It will cross different defenses in different directions. We have a boulder launch that projects the boulder at the high goal from the opposite end of the pickup. Our robot ends are "pickup" and "launch" rather than "front" and "back".

Our height is 14.9 inches, give or take. We have a definite front and back to our robot because of our use of an arm, but we're alternatively looking at approaching the low bar from the back while going in to the courtyard, and the opposite for exiting the courtyard.
Since the defense isn't all that big, how big is the difference in a structure being closer or farther to the neutral zone? And will it make that much of a difference trying to pass underneath it?

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by anishde

Our height is 14.9 inches, give or take.

Depending on your wheelbase and where the high spots are, this may be too tall because of the ramps coming and going. See this thread for details.

[Type]

We just mounted our arm on our robot and when it is folded down, it is like 11.5" in the front and 13.5" in the back. We pushed it under the low bar by hand (not done wiring yet) and we aren't even close to touching it right now.

[bowmanb]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Our robot ends are "pickup" and "launch" rather than "front" and "back".

LOL, we were constantly arguing over which end is which. We finally came to the same kind of terminology compromise, although ours is "intake" and "shooter"