Was the Low Bar worth it?

[JesseK]

No, it wasn't worth it. I would have much preferred to have an extra 6" of height.

C'est la vie.

[Anupam Goli]

Not worth. We overestimated our knowledge and design capability. If I were to redo this season, I'd have us go tall.

[Chris is me]

If you asked me this week 5 or 6 I would have said no, but I'm glad we went under the low bar for a few reasons:

- Forced a low CG; it would have been very easy to build a tall and flippable robot without the low bar forcing us down to a certain height

- Forced design compromise; trying to shoot high and hang from the beginning would have resulted in our team overshooting and failing to complete either objective well. The low bar basically took hanging off the table for us.

- Provided an alternate path to the courtyard if something on the drive was starting to break and we didn't want to risk getting stuck.

Ultimately, the low bar was a great addition to the game, even for teams that didn't successfully go under it. I think it saved the game from being like 2010, with lots of bad robots that flipped a lot.

[itsjustjon]

Totally worth it in more ways than just one.

Things learned from designing for the LB:
- Subsystem Lay-out Packaging
- How to design smaller and more compact in general
- Low CG made tipping virtually a non-issue

Things gained from designing for the LB:
- Ability to guarantee a Breach when paired with a good drive(huge for Elims)
- Fast cycle times from SP to Courtyard via the Low Bar
- Autonomous mode that didn't have to compensate for the other defenses

It might have been tough at first, but there are huge benefits considering blocked shots only became an issue later on into an event or in eliminations (where we still weren't worried about it because our alliance partners at OC were tall).

Overall, I would still have an LB-Bot if I were to do Stronghold all over again.

[Eric Scheuing]

It's a tough call, but overall I would say no.

On the one hand, we did cycles through the low bar since it was easy to pick up boulders from the secret passage/human player.

On the other hand, the size constraints and our bot design limited us to the point that we would have had to give up our low bar capabilities to climb. Like I said before though we were a low bar bot, so the tradeoff of climbing vs changing our entire strategy up before CMP wasn't worth it.

[carpedav000]

No, the low bar wasn't worth all of the broken arm gearboxes.

[orangemoore]

NO!


And I wish my team listened to me.

[Sperkowsky]

The low bar was kinda worth it for us and ill explain.

At first glance we chose the low bar for the quick cycle times and easy crossing. It forced our designs to be cheaper (less material usage) and made a low cog and light robot easier to obtain.

My favorite advantage however is not competitive at all.

My favorite thing is that our robot fit inside normal sized cars. Allowing our team to go all over practicing and now doing demos without having to ask for the school truck. As we transition to trying to become a chairmans team having a small robot that is extremely easy to transport is going to help a lot.

[Nyxyxylyth]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

My favorite thing is that our robot fit inside normal sized cars. Allowing our team to go all over practicing and now doing demos without having to ask for the school truck. As we transition to trying to become a chairmans team having a small robot that is extremely easy to transport is going to help a lot.

So much truth. Probably the first and last robot that will easily fit in my hatchback. Traveling 6 miles to play practice matches was a no-brainer.

[BJT]

Yes. We had fast climber, averaged about 6 high goals at champs, (partly because we could fly under the low bar to get more). And we were 5 points away from Einstein. I can't think of much we would have done different.

[GeeTwo]

See also this thread.

To summarize: IMO, yes.

[Briansmithtown]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Not worth. We overestimated our knowledge and design capability. If I were to redo this season, I'd have us go tall.

Nothing really related to your comment, but what does your Avatar picture say?

[Donovan0217]

Being one of the teams that originally decided against the low bar, I still feel the same way. One of the biggest advantages we felt was that we didn't have to limit ourselves in the designing processes due to small packing constraints. We did have some issues over the course of the season with our high CG, but the difficulty in blocking our shots and ease of attaching our climber made it well worth it.

[the_godfaubel]

From a design standpoint, it was worth it. I feel we learned how to build within a set of constraints based on preference to go under the low bar, rather than build the same high robot as usual. It was certainly a challenge that we will be more prepared for in the future.

From a performance standpoint, it was not worth it. We could have certainly done better with a taller robot. We could already clear all the defenses with little effort (minus the Drawbridge and Sally Port). There's also a lot less room to tinker under 16 inches.

[Littlepchan]

If we were told to build another robot from scratch, knowing what would happen, our team wouldn't second guess going under the low bar.

The low bar provided the fastest cycle time and for fast shooters like us, we did a lot of damage. Especially with our last game. We had 11 attempted shots, 9 goals, one bounce out, and the other I have no idea what happened. (we're the red bot that's cycling low bar)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfpxuq4s16..._high.MP4?dl=0