Low bar or not

[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?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

It is very much late in the season for this kind of decision to be made in my opinion.

On the contrary, I expect the majority of teams in FRC to make this decision in Week 5 or Week 6 of build season.

I think most teams have decided to go for it, but many, many teams will learn during testing that they are not very good at it, that Mechanism X interferes, that they have to drive slowly / in a specific way to go through it. At this point, some teams will see an opportunity to be better at X / Y / Z aspect of the game in exchange for not being able to go under the low bar. For many it will be hanging. For others perhaps a more accurate shooter will work with extra height. Maybe the mechanism teams use to go through other obstacles just can't tackle the low bar for some reason.

Now is when teams need to be thinking about "is it worth it", because the end of the season is when teams tend to break from their strategic objectives. Teams who "should" be keeping low bar functionality WILL give it up for the sake of keeping a "cool" mechanism, and teams who "shouldn't" be keeping the functionality will at the expense of the rest of their robot. It'll happen for sure, so we should have an informed discussion as to what robots should keep this capability and why rather than shutting down people for being "too late".

(The painful thing about this decision is that, if teams that abandon the low bar decided to abandon it from Day 1, they would be much better at every other aspect of the game simply because of the loosened constraints. The jack of all trades is the master of none, after all, and this is a classic case where over-reaching can hurt a team's season)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Depends on how good your packaging guru's are.

It is possible to fit everything you need to play the game under the low bar. You just have to plan for the space for each mechanism beforehand rather than look for space when you get around to it.

It is on the cusp of maddening insanity to attempt to fit EVERY mechanism under the 15" while designing and working to being the BEST at something*. I will have a lot of respect for a team which stays under ~15" and can play every aspect of this game with any level of repeat-ability.

The really nice side effect is that even with large 8" wheels and a high ground clearance, c.g. is very low given the decision to attempt the low bar. In fact, I can move our battery from it lowest-mountable point in the frame to above the drive train transmissions and shift c.g. up by only about 1/8" (according to CAD...).

*Something being pick one: Scaling ; High Goal ; Low Goal ; Defense (point prevention) ; breaching ; Autonomous

[c.shu]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It is on the cusp of maddening insanity to attempt to fit EVERY mechanism under the 15" while designing and working to being the BEST at something*. I will have a lot of respect for a team which stays under ~15" and can play every aspect of this game with any level of repeat-ability.

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

We're right there with you.

We pushed to 15". Slowing down a bit to go under is our tradeoff for the extra critical 0.5" of height for a certain mechanism.

On the plus side, the portcullis doesn't have to be raised that far

[catacon]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

Originally Posted by JesseK

We're right there with you.

We pushed to 15". Slowing down a bit to go under is our tradeoff for the extra critical 0.5" of height for a certain mechanism.

On the plus side, the portcullis doesn't have to be raised that far

Yuuuup. We're a bunch of madmen also. The 2016 robot will certainly be our most dense robot ever.

[mrnoble]

We are currently at 13". No climber yet, but we will see.

[MrForbes]

we finally got the robot mostly working today...and tried it on the low bar. It fit.

https://youtu.be/8ZeExbmZBVA

.

[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"

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

we finally got the robot mostly working today...and tried it on the low bar. It fit.

https://youtu.be/8ZeExbmZBVA

.

Very nice. We look like we have similar bots. Except we have an articulating shooter and a climber. See you in NYC.

[IronicDeadBird]

I have a hard time finding somethings value or worth until I either have overwhelming evidence that indicates how a scenario will run, or I have run the scenario and just found out that it is worth.
The big thing though is if you pin yourself to this big (or technically small) of a constraint, then you better be utilizing it fully to your advantage otherwise you might be making sacrifices for nothing.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

I have a hard time finding somethings value or worth until I either have overwhelming evidence that indicates how a scenario will run, or I have run the scenario and just found out that it is worth.
The big thing though is if you pin yourself to this big (or technically small) of a constraint, then you better be utilizing it fully to your advantage otherwise you might be making sacrifices for nothing.

Those are good points. However for my team at least, we found that we could fit everything under the height limit and still perform well. At times I have wanted to completely rework the design, but working through it has definitely paid off.
At the very least it gives us the option of going under, and to change our strategy. It's easy to get tall, but it's hard to stay short.

[lovelj]

Originally Posted by c.shu

Call us insane then. (we are at 14.5" right now)

Yup, lots of nuts in the nuthouse. We are definitely nuts. Another camera angle...

Low robots force discipline. You are either going to have a rats nest which is unreliable or a very tight robot which can survive. This is going to be a rough game. Sadly, no printed robot for 3824 this year... Cracked the frame week 1. If this is a fast game, loads on structural members will be the highest we've ever experienced.

[bearbot]

We have figured out the low bar and Groups A,B and D and have a shooter that can go high or low. Still working out and working on our climber concepts but that was the lowest our list of to dos .

[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.