[MCC] Minimum Competive Concept 2016

[Kevin Leonard]

I'd like to offer up Team 5811, BONDS Robotics from Ohio as this year's MCC.
http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/5811

5811 had an intake and a decent drivetrain. They could score up to 6 low goals in a match, and could cross most of the defenses that mattered.

They were the 7th alliance captain at their first event, upsetting the 2 seed and winning Rookie All-Star. They were the second selection of the 8th alliance captain at their second event, almost upsetting the #1 seed in three close matches.

They competed in the Hopper Division, and were very high on our picklist for third and fourth robots.

[Lil' Lavery]

Requirements (rough priority order):

1. Durable design that survives matches (minimal radio reboots, brownouts, thrown chains, stripped gears, tipping, etc).

2. Can challenge tower

3. Capable of crossing terrain defenses in tele-op

4. Capable of acquiring and spitting out boulders

5. Capable of crossing terrain defenses in autonomous

6. Capable of crossing low bar in tele-op

7. Capable of crossing low bar in autonomous

8. Capable of crossing category A defenses in tele-op



Differentiating factors (how to stand out compared to other similar bots):

1. Low goal autonomous

2. Category A autonomous

3. Robot visibility past category C defenses

4. Shot blocking device

5. Predictable/controllable positioning after autonomous crossings

6. Autonomous routines with delays

[Chris is me]

There are several different robot designs this year that meet this criteria, I think.

Ultimately, the robot needs to do the following:
- Cross two defenses a match regardless of the configuration on the field (both defenses of one category + the low bar should do it)
- Pick up balls and score them in the low goal
- Stay on the batter
- Push

I do think you need a pickup to be consistently competitive. You can win events without one but you won't consistently seed well. This robot can seed #1 with some luck (or the ability to cross more than 3 of the 9 defenses).

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Requirements (rough priority order):

1. Durable design

This year especially, build something that won't break. And If it breaks, easy to fix between matches.

Add a quick ball intake/discharge for low goals, at most events you can seed in the top 8.

Last is driver practice. Practice practice practice. Two teams with identical drive trains but differing drive experience preform drastically different. Lack of robot features can be compensated with lots of practice.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

5811 had an intake and a decent drivetrain. They could score up to 7 low goals in a match, and could cross most of the defenses that mattered.

Fixed that for you .

At champs we had one match where we scored 6 low goals while being disconnected for 40 seconds of the match, and still another where we scored 7 low goals while carrying the breach for our alliance (I think 5 or 6 out of the 8 crosses). I'm convinced we could have scored more than 7 if the right situation presented itself.

But seriously, thank you for the mention, but I think we slightly exceeded the criteria for an MCC. We kinda set out to build an MCC this season with our goal of making playoffs at both our regional events. We ended up over-shooting the MCC by a bit with surprise ability to cross the portcullis and auto routines for crossing 3 unique classes of defenses rather consistently. But overall I'd say we're a fairly close example.

[GCarnes]

I'd like to also show off my team's robot (Team 5150) as an example of the MCC for this year. Simple, cheap, and robust were our objectives for the season. Total cost was a little over $1,000 which allowed us to have a practice bot and a competition bot. We had a drivetrain that went through many iterations to find the best option as well as an accessory arm that acted as a ball intake, anti-tortuga arm, and the class A defense manipulator. We were able to cycle fast low goals. (8 a match.) As well as act as a defender at MSC eliminations and Newton eliminations. We were 1st alliance captain at Kettering #1, 4th alliance captain at MSC, and 5th alliance captain at CMP in the Newton division.

Check out the event details here: http://www.thebluealliance.com/team/5150

Check out more of the robot and get in touch with us here: http://hybridhornets.weebly.com/robots.html

[Steven Smith]

This was basically the goal for 3005 as well.

Our robot was a chain in tube, 8WD pneumatic drivetrain, with a dual roller intake on one side and a single roller intake on the other. We could easily breach all the defenses (including a sally port spin and drawbridge if we had to drive over, tap, drive back).

By champs, we could cycle 6-8 low goal boulders per match.

We were #2 seed of ~60 at Alamo, and the #2 AC and regional finalists. We were #2 seed at Dallas of ~45, but ended up out in SF due to a couple alliance issues. At champs, we were #7 seed in Curie, and ended up leading that alliance to the Curie finals, missing out on Einstein by 2 points in one match, and 1 point in another.

The keys were recognizing the opportunity early in our season, getting a second bot built for the first time to get a huge amount of driver practice, and a focus on absolute reliability and scouting. We never missed a match, lost comms, or had a major component failure that wasn't fixed in 10 minutes or less.

Link to Youtube video of robot

[FrankJ]

So we are looking for minimum competitive concept. 4 wheel 8 or 10 inch pneumatic tires. 4 cim drive geared around 8 ft/s. (With MCC you get agile or fast, but not both). A fast intake capable of squirting the ball in the low goal. Intake could be a combination of wheels and pneumatics. A simple arm actuator for the category A defenses. This could almost be assembled with KOP and first choice parts. especially for a second year team.

With this you could breach by yourself if you had to. Score a low goal autonomous fairly consistently. Break the tower with a little help (and pick up the extra RP). This would you get picking at most districts & regionals. To win in eliminations you would need the help of a high goal capable robot on your alliance. (Add good scouting to the list)

[CloakAndDagger]

Reading through this thread, I would say that our robot perfectly fits this bill. We made the trade off of crossing defenses and quick low goals for shooting and hanging, but sacrificed high goal shooting. Although it was effective (we qualified and advanced through michigan state finals, and finished as an 8th alliance captain at worlds), we are hoping to have a high goal shooter operational by our first offseason competition.

Although clearly effective, it does show that we need to push ourselves. I feel like that as a team as old as ours, we should be able to accomplish more than the minimum level of competitiveness, consistently, no matter how many seniors we lose, or any other circumstances that fall on us

[marccenter]

Originally Posted by CloakAndDagger

Reading through this thread, I would say that our robot perfectly fits this bill. We made the trade off of crossing defenses and quick low goals for shooting and hanging, but sacrificed high goal shooting. Although it was effective (we qualified and advanced through michigan state finals, and finished as an 8th alliance captain at worlds), we are hoping to have a high goal shooter operational by our first offseason competition.

Although clearly effective, it does show that we need to push ourselves. I feel like that as a team as old as ours, we should be able to accomplish more than the minimum level of competitiveness, consistently, no matter how many seniors we lose, or any other circumstances that fall on us

CloakAndDagger:

Our goal at the beginning of the season was to qualify for MSC and we felt we could do that with our team resources (mentors, students, time, money) by building a very competitive MCC robot and were not disappointed [Team 1114 presentation makes this point about carefully evaluating your resources]

FRC3548, RoboRavens2, built a MCC robot that successfully became #3 captain at SOuthfield and then selected by #1 captain, 3604, to win the event with our sister team, FRC1188, who also built a MCC robot.

At our second FiM event at Livonia, after a few rounds of alliance captain picking each other, we found ourselves as captain of alliance#8. Our sister team, 1188, chose us as their first pick.

From this perspective I think the students considered our season very successful especially after we qualified for MSC and the World Championship at St. Louis.

One of the major things different this year was how much the KOP chassi had to change in order to be an effective MCC robot (our view). What normally takes us only two weeks to complete took us four weeks this year. Modifications to the KOP chassis included the pneumatic upgrade kit from AM, the AM front wedge plate, VEX Pro 13t CIM gear, 50 tooth trans gear swap, and new belts to go with the VEX 60T belt pulleys. We needed to resize our KOP by reducing it by one inch in order to accommodate the belt and pulleys.

As an experienced coach I know that our 10 student member team will peak at about 500 hours in the six week build period. As such, not having a shooter to reuse "off the shelf" or a climber "off the shelf" made those two items very low on the wish list. We are considering those off season projects at the present time.

One the great things about successfully competing and successfully completing a MCC robot is that the team is not stretched to its absolute limits the whole season long. This allows the coaches, students and mentors to smile and enjoy the entire season a whole lot more. This is an important element in retaining and attracting students, mentors and coaches for the next year.

[CloakAndDagger]

Originally Posted by marccenter

CloakAndDagger:

Our goal at the beginning of the season was to qualify for MSC and we felt we could do that with our team resources (mentors, students, time, money) by building a very competitive MCC robot and were not disappointed [Team 1114 presentation makes this point about carefully evaluating your resources]

FRC3548, RoboRavens2, built a MCC robot that successfully became #3 captain at SOuthfield and then selected by #1 captain, 3604, to win the event with our sister team, FRC1188, who also built a MCC robot.

At our second FiM event at Livonia, after a few rounds of alliance captain picking each other, we found ourselves as captain of alliance#8. Our sister team, 1188, chose us as their first pick.

From this perspective I think the students considered our season very successful especially after we qualified for MSC and the World Championship at St. Louis.

One of the major things different this year was how much the KOP chassi had to change in order to be an effective MCC robot (our view). What normally takes us only two weeks to complete took us four weeks this year. Modifications to the KOP chassis included the pneumatic upgrade kit from AM, the AM front wedge plate, VEX Pro 13t CIM gear, 50 tooth trans gear swap, and new belts to go with the VEX 60T belt pulleys. We needed to resize our KOP by reducing it by one inch in order to accommodate the belt and pulleys.

As an experienced coach I know that our 10 student member team will peak at about 500 hours in the six week build period. As such, not having a shooter to reuse "off the shelf" or a climber "off the shelf" made those two items very low on the wish list. We are considering those off season projects at the present time.

One the great things about successfully competing and successfully completing a MCC robot is that the team is not stretched to its absolute limits the whole season long. This allows the coaches, students and mentors to smile and enjoy the entire season a whole lot more. This is an important element in retaining and attracting students, mentors and coaches for the next year.

I'm not saying under any circumstances that an MCC robot cannot be competitive, but I am saying that we need to push ourselves further than we did this year. We have so many advantages over newer teams, and yet we find ourselves falling short last year and this year.

We get custom punched sheet metal from Russels Technical Products, in any metal we want. We have a warehouse from which we work, upon which we pay no overhead. We have an array of mentors from every field imaginable, and yet...

You guys spent 4 weeks building a competitive robot out of the KOP base. We spent as long trying to get our bases designed. We had the luxury of having 3 bases custom made to our specifications this year, and our arm as well, and instead of using this as the advantage that it was, we leaned on it as a crutch. We had all this free time, and yet, when confronted with regearing a gear box, or progressing beyond our first high goal shooting prototype, our build lead looked me straight in the eye and said it was too much work. As soon as we had preliminary arm designs done, our design team stopped showing up at the building.

We have work to do, and i and several other students plan on implementing it. In that sense, this year helped us identify the many, many shortcomings that we had, but it was still disappointing to say the least, especially knowing how much untapped potential our team has.

[GreyingJay]

Our robot was basically an MCC. We kept it simple, super robust (it never broke down!), and practiced as much as we could.

KOP chassis upgraded to 6 8" pneumatic wheels.
Built narrow to go over half the ramparts without catching on the other half (this turned out to be a key design decision)!
Low bar capable.
"Roll cage" and Lexan cover to protect innards and drive under portcullis.
Capable of going over rock wall, rough terrain, and moat.
Single arm wheeled shooter to intake/shoot balls. Designed for low goal (theoretically could have done high goal with some refinement, but we didn't get this reliable enough to use - only 50% successful)
Arm mechanism also capable of handling the cheval de frise and the portcullis.
Cameras for vision tracking in auto and for driver station display.
Multiple autonomous modes (low bar low goal with and without vision, reach any defense, cross ground defense quickly, cross ground defense slowly, cross cheval de frise, cross portcullis, do nothing)

No climber. No mechanisms for sally port or drawbridge.

We practiced, practiced, practiced variations on cycles including quickly breaching, quickly grabbing boulders to deposit into the courtyard, and doing full cycles of low goals.

This was good enough to make 6th and 5th alliance captain at GTRC and North Bay, which I call a great success for our first year!

[GeeTwo]

Going for those non-zero-sum ranking points was essential.

Essential items:

• Durable drive train, capable of repeatedly driving over category B & D (terrain) at a reasonable (or insanely fast) speed, reasonably low CoG (preferably within bumper zone), and park on batter
• Fast boulder pickup and reasonably short cycle time (20s), with reliable low goal scoring (or feed to a high goal shooter)
• Plenty of driver practice (10 hours minimum)

Plus three or more of these:

• reasonably reliable autonomous crossing
• Ability to drive under low bar
• Ability to cross additional category of defenses (most likely category A, portcullis/CDF)
• High goal, reasonably fast (3-5 sec extra), preferably from batter or outer works.
• Good defensive ability, with enough height to block many high-goal shooters

Above MCC, but great for WINNING regionals:

• Scaling
• Auto goal score
• Double auto goal score.

There were a number of drive systems that were workable (tank tread, pneumatic wheels, and many solid wheels). The best all-around manipulator concept was the popular intake wheels at the end of a long arm that could extend over the bumpers, hold the boulder, and feed it back out. With a little careful design, this same arm could operate the CDF and portcullis. Some sort of side rails or other system (e.g. built into the pickup arm) to make going under the portcullis a clean run is also needed.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Plus three or more of these:

I think this missed the point of "minimum" as it gets into the realm of "do a little bit of everything". I would say one and only one of those (but remove HG from it completely). Agree with your essentials though.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by JesseK

I think this missed the point of "minimum" as it gets into the realm of "do a little bit of everything". I would say one and only one of those (but remove HG from it completely). Agree with your essentials though.

That is the rub. Most cannot keep themselves from trying to do too much.