Is Stronghold the roughest game yet?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

The difficulty with this particular game stems more from the fact that teams' institutional memory of games before RR has failed. AA was rougher in robot-to-robot interaction, while Stronghold is rougher in terms of vertical drops and robot-to-field interaction. RR taught new students that FRC robots could be lightly built and survive, which is one of the longer lasting shames about that game.

And bumpers. There were basically 3 years worth of students on teams who had never had to build a robust bumper. (Let alone compliant with the rules...)

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by CalTran

And bumpers. There were basically 3 years worth of students on teams who had never had to build a robust bumper. (Let alone compliant with the rules...)

This statement confuses me. Surely students who competed in Aerial Assist would have some memory of how to build robust bumpers.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

This statement confuses me. Surely students who competed in Aerial Assist would have some memory of how to build robust bumpers.

A one year gap is a lot of time to forget.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by CalTran

A one year gap is a lot of time to forget.

It really is, and plus Aerial Assist simply didn't have that much brute force on either the frame or the bumpers (I've been told). Most of the bumpers I saw falling off, happened when the robot hit a defense the wrong and got stuck.

Tell me, (I wasn't a part of aerial assist) did bumpers fall off often in aerial assist?

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

It really is, and plus Aerial Assist simply didn't have that much brute force on either the frame or the bumpers (I've been told).

Took a hit so hard at champs in AA that the drive rails on our WCD bowed outwards and all the rivets mounting the drive rails to the bellypan sheared.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

It really is, and plus Aerial Assist simply didn't have that much brute force on either the frame or the bumpers (I've been told). Most of the bumpers I saw falling off, happened when the robot hit a defense the wrong and got stuck.

Tell me, (I wasn't a part of aerial assist) did bumpers fall off often in aerial assist?

You should watch some of our matches from 2014 then, I would wager that we had the fastest robot on the field that year. We were almost max weight and nearly all of it was less than a foot off the ground, I don't care if you have good bumpers when a 140 pound robot slams into you at 2% the speed of sound(Yes really) you will feel it. The pool noodles went completely flat in the corners, the maple plywood shattered several times.

This year is still worse though.

[Tom Line]

This is the roughest game since 2006 - the last year before bumpers were added.

Robot to robot contact cushioned by bumpers simply isn't that nasty. Negative acceleration over the distance of bumper compression involves less g-force than a robot slamming into an essentially unmovable steel barrier with a portion of their chassis. If you add in the violent landing that occurs - even coming off the chili fries - you have a game that would test any robot.

In addition, I have yet to see a robot to robot interaction foul called this year. In 2014, interaction inside the bumper zone was very frequently flagged. This year it is not flagged, and some tippy defensive robots have spent a good portion of their match time landing on top of other robots.

In 2006, it was possible to have a chassis to chassis interaction of two robots travelling full speed in opposite directions. Robot interaction fouls were rarely called. I would argue those collisions may have had greater forces involved than this year. However, they were rare compared to defensive crossings.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

In addition, I have yet to see a robot to robot interaction foul called this year.

You haven't been paying attention to chief delphi at all have you There have been several several fouls called, and several red cards called as well for robot to robot interaction.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

You haven't been paying attention to chief delphi at all have you There have been several several fouls called, and several red cards called as well for robot to robot interaction.

Interesting. It must be as widely varied as the tipping fouls are. There were a couple bots at Michigan Champs who would wheelie when accelerating and then slam down on top of other bots and I never saw a single foul called - even when pieces went flying.

[GeeTwo]

Stronghold is certainly the roughest game in recent memory; I'm not qualified to say anything about the early years. It was clearly the most brutal terrain since Breakaway. IIRC, a Breakaway bot could opt to go under those walls; in Stronghold, there was no (legal) way around (under) the opposing defenses, and crossing most defenses twice was actually a Ranking Point game objective (breaching), and doing many crossings is usually essential to another (capturing the tower). All of the reliable shortcuts and workarounds to robots directly crossing the defenses were plugged by game rules.

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

It really is, and plus Aerial Assist simply didn't have that much brute force on either the frame or the bumpers (I've been told). Most of the bumpers I saw falling off, happened when the robot hit a defense the wrong and got stuck.

Tell me, (I wasn't a part of aerial assist) did bumpers fall off often in aerial assist?

I don't recall nearly as many lost bumpers in Aerial Assist. There were massive bumper-to-bumper hits - harder than I've seen in Stronghold. This is because the field had no obstructions except the four corner goals. However, this force usually drove the bumpers INTO the robot; Stronghold has many more cases where bumpers are exposed to high shear forces. This was the first time since Breakaway that bumpers were regularly slamming vertically into field elements. Further, in Aerial Assist, teams mostly tried to lower the bumpers as close to the ground as possible, to make picking up that 24" ball easier. In Stronghold, most bumpers topped out between 11" and 12" to make it easier to get over the defenses (and in many cases the boulder intake is BELOW the bumpers this year).

Between the many angles of collision and the high number of "bumper rookies" there were bound to be a lot of bumpers on the carpet. Even veteran teams were short on bumper tribal knowledge -- our fifth year team had four students who played both Aerial Assist and Stronghold. Two did wiring and two did programming for Aerial Assist - none touched a bumper except to help swap them out while on pit duty. Our bumper knowledge was from mentors. Our returning technical mentors had never dealt directly with bumpers in the past except as something to work around, though we do have a NTM who took part in bumper sewing (though not mechanical construction or mounting) during our early years. Without the preserved wisdom of CD, we would have probably been in the "bumpers on the carpet" crowd.

[dirtbikerxz]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Our bumper knowledge was from mentors. Our returning technical mentors had never dealt directly with bumpers in the past except as something to work around.

Thankfully, our team had a parent who made the actual bumpers themselves for ultimate ascent and aerial assist. She was able to use that knowledge and improve upon it to make really robust bumpers (after lone star (our second event) our bumpers were only slightly ripped). And regarding mounting mechanisms, we just decided to go overboard and add mounting points in every free spot on the frame perimeter. With those two things combined thankfully we were a "carpet bumper" team .