Go to Post ... six weeks, it's too long, but not long enough. - Stillen [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:28
JoaquinC's Avatar
JoaquinC JoaquinC is offline
Loctite tastes a little sweet
AKA: Joaquin Castillo
FRC #3481 (Bronc Botz)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 19
JoaquinC will become famous soon enough
Was the Low Bar worth it?

Now that the 2016 season is over, I’d like to ask the Chief Delphi community the question:

Knowing what you now know of this year’s game and how it plays out, on a qualification level, elimination level, regional/district level, and championship level, would you still have chosen to design your robot either to the constraints of the low bar or ignoring the low bar entirely?

Looking back to these threads towards the beginning of the season: Low Bar and Terrifying Karthik, we saw what was to some a surprisingly high ratio of low to tall robots, almost 9:1. Now looking at Einstein, seven of the thirty-two robots were not low bar capable, a rough ratio of 4:1 low to tall. The same ratio holds true for the champion alliance. We also saw a couple alliances like Newton’s winning alliance where only one bot on the field was low bar capable. For that alliance in particular, both the captain and first pick (217 and 3476) were tall. Our alliance in the Newton elims also had only one low bot (67) on the field at a time. For most alliances, only one robot would actually be cycling through the low bar in a match.

In the thread: First seed alliance captain: Low Bar or not? We saw that there were rarely any tall bots seeding first at the end of the qualification matches. At champs three of the eight first seed alliance captains were not low bar capable: 1241, 1501, and 973. 3481 came close in Bayou, seeding second by the difference of one RP. Though we saw many advantages to going tall: easier to design for the batter shot, easier for three students to CAD without access to a CNC or mechanical engineering mentors, and visibility of robot over defenses at all times, we were also confronted with its disadvantage. At Hub City we were not paired with an alliance partner that was low bar capable until our last qualification match of the first day. This lead to a lower accumulation of RP and therefor a lower seed. We learned that the advantages of being tall don’t really come into play until regional elims or champs.

Many low robots were also faced with the challenge, as largely discussed in the thread: Your tall opaque robot is now illegal, of having their cameras blocked by taller bots. For some, this was a serious issue and for others like 1986 this was just another problem that needed to be solved. Though I’m not sure if they eventually implemented this at champs.

IMO teams that approached the low bar correctly were teams like 16, 67, 971, 1678, and 330 who have, as our coaches like to call, transformer bots, changing from a low bot to a tall bot once inside the coutyard. I feel as though my team, with its limitations, made the correct decision in designing a tall bot this year. But that’s just my two cents. What do you all think? Would you hop in a time machine and stop your team from going with a low design or a tall design?

TL;DR read above.

Thank you for your time,

-JoaquinC, H.P.

Terminology: low = low bar capable; tall = not low bar capable
__________________


FLL: 365 Decontaminators (2011-12)
FTC: 6221 Panther Bots Alpha & 6219 Panther Bots Bravo (2013-16)
FRC: 3481 Bronc Botz (2012-16)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't make." -yours truly

Last edited by JoaquinC : 03-05-2016 at 19:22.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:31
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is online now
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,695
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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

C'est la vie.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:32
Anupam Goli's Avatar
Anupam Goli Anupam Goli is offline
PCH Q&A co-founder/Scouting Mentor
AKA: noops
FRC #1648 (G3 Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 1,242
Anupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond reputeAnupam Goli has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

Not worth. We overestimated our knowledge and design capability. If I were to redo this season, I'd have us go tall.
__________________
Team 1002: 2008-2012
Team 1648: 2012-2016
Georgia Tech Class of 2016
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:36
Chris is me's Avatar
Chris is me Chris is me is online now
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,718
Chris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond reputeChris is me has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Chris is me
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:38
kyle_hamblett's Avatar
kyle_hamblett kyle_hamblett is offline
Hamby
FRC #1073 (The Force Team)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 134
kyle_hamblett will become famous soon enoughkyle_hamblett will become famous soon enough
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

If I had known how many low bots would be around this season, I most definitely would have opted to be a tall bot. IMO, the only true advantage of having a low bot was being able to do the low bar. It made the shots super easy to block, and it was hard to keep track of where your robot was on the field, especially if there was a sally port/drawbridge on the field. It seems like the teams that did a fantastic job of pulling it off(1241, 2471) were able to do every other defense on the field, while having the advantage of shooting from a higher point. The only disadvantage was the higher COG, but it seems like most tall bots handled it well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:38
Eric Scheuing's Avatar
Eric Scheuing Eric Scheuing is offline
Registered User
FRC #0999 (MechaRAMS)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Cheshire, CT
Posts: 409
Eric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud ofEric Scheuing has much to be proud of
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
__________________




2005-2007: Bobcat Robotics 177
2015-20XX: MechaRAMS 999
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:44
itsjustjon's Avatar
itsjustjon itsjustjon is offline
#HoldStrong
AKA: Jon
FRC #3309 (Friarbots)
Team Role: Marketing
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 113
itsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud ofitsjustjon has much to be proud of
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
__________________
2016: Beach Blitz Lead Queuer, Newton Quarter-finalists, Orange County Regional Winners, Los Angeles Regional Dean's List Finalist, Los Angeles Regional Chairman's Award Winner
2015: Curie Quarter-finalists, AZ West Regional Winners, Las Vegas Regional Finalists
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:44
carpedav000's Avatar
carpedav000 carpedav000 is offline
Studenting is hard, but worth it!
AKA: David Carpenter
no team (Jerry-Rigg school of DuctTapeology)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 475
carpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant futurecarpedav000 has a brilliant future
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

No, the low bar wasn't worth all of the broken arm gearboxes.
__________________
It isn't shiny enough.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:46
Sperkowsky's Avatar
Sperkowsky Sperkowsky is offline
Professional Multitasker
AKA: Samuel Perkowsky
FRC #2869 (Regal Eagles)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Bethpage, NY
Posts: 1,905
Sperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond reputeSperkowsky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:46
orangemoore orangemoore is offline
Registered User
AKA: Roger Moore
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,309
orangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond reputeorangemoore has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

NO!


And I wish my team listened to me.
__________________
Stronghold


Student 2013-2016
3135 -- Robotic Colonels
3507 -- Robotheosis (FTC)
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:48
BJT's Avatar
BJT BJT is offline
uh, should that be smoking?
AKA: Ben Thorsgard
FRC #0876 (Thunder Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Northwood ND
Posts: 250
BJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond reputeBJT has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
__________________


2016 Central Illinois Winner. Curie Division finalist
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:52
Nyxyxylyth Nyxyxylyth is offline
Registered User
AKA: Neal Manson
FRC #1481 (The Riveters)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Southfield, MI
Posts: 70
Nyxyxylyth is just really niceNyxyxylyth is just really niceNyxyxylyth is just really niceNyxyxylyth is just really niceNyxyxylyth is just really nice
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sperkowsky View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:52
GeeTwo's Avatar
GeeTwo GeeTwo is offline
Technical Director
AKA: Gus Michel II
FRC #3946 (Tiger Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Slidell, LA
Posts: 3,655
GeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond reputeGeeTwo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

See also this thread.

To summarize: IMO, yes.
__________________

If you can't find time to do it right, how are you going to find time to do it over?
If you don't pass it on, it never happened.
Robots are great, but inspiration is the reason we're here.
Friends don't let friends use master links.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 16:53
Briansmithtown's Avatar
Briansmithtown Briansmithtown is offline
Pilot shortage, Good thing Im tall
AKA: Brian Sheridan
FRC #0810 (Smithtown Mechanical Bulls)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Smithtown
Posts: 274
Briansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond reputeBriansmithtown has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anupam Goli View Post
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?
__________________
2014 Team 810 Recap video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS9K_j1FzF4
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-05-2016, 17:09
Donovan0217's Avatar
Donovan0217 Donovan0217 is offline
Registered User
FRC #0217 (The Thunderchickens)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 19
Donovan0217 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?

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.
__________________
Student 2012, Mentor 2013-present
2013 Michigan State Champions (469, 3539, 217)
2013 Newton Finalists (1986, 1538, 217)
2015 Archimedes Finalists (1640, 1310, 217)
2016 Newton Champions (217, 3476, 4678, 188)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:40.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi