What do you think of a wedge

[Ben Mitchell]

To be honest, I really don't like wedges.

Although they might be made with a good purpose (helping others onto the platform, etc)

The temptation and randomness of autonomouse mode makes real and major risks for them to be used to flip others - if even accidentally.

[Andrew]

We've had a movable wedge on our robot for the past three years. Our net flipping of robots is zero.

A wedge (inclined plane) is the simplest of the simple machines. It would be poor engineering to eliminate this concept just because you think it might be seen as "ungracious."

What's next? No wheels? (That's the other super-duper-simple machine.)

I can hear the discussion now. "That robot is made to roll around. Some rolling robots ram into other robots. That's ungracious. Therefore, all things with wheels are ungracious. Therefore, wheels are bad and shouldn't be used."

[Ben Mitchell]

At the same time - why would any robot need to be made to be shaped like an angle?

A number of teams from my own experiences have made wedge like designs, and unintentionally flip teams or carry the risk of flipping them.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Ben Mitchell

At the same time - why would any robot need to be made to be shaped like an angle?

A number of teams from my own experiences have made wedge like designs, and unintentionally flip teams or carry the risk of flipping them.

If my robot is shaped like a giant wedge, and I am minding my own business picking up balls... and your robot decides to attack me for defensive reasons... you are going to have a hard time pushing me around. You are at risk of flipping yourself.

It's not the wedge itself that is ungracious... sometimes they are just used ungraciously. *Shrug* When I reffed last year, I would warn teams that I felt were playing "rougher" than they should. In most cases, this put a stop to it.

JVN

[Gui Cavalcanti]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the robot pictured is Chief Delphi's, not HOT's. It says so on the side

I think wedges are a valid design, but gracious professionalism has to go hand-in-hand. If you are an aggressive wedge you're going to be called on penalties. I see it like basketball; you're not allowed to shove someone, but if they run into you it's their problem. In that manner, a defensive wedge would be perfectly legal.

A wedge with another, non-offensive or defensive use would be perfect (Wildstang in 2001, wedge-to-ramp).

[Joel Glidden]

Originally Posted by Section 5.2.5 Design and Build Rules

<R10> Teams are expected to design and build robots to withstand vigorous interaction with other robots. See The Game section of the manual.

I think inclined planes (wedges) fit right in here. As I see it there are three ways of dealing with "vigorous interaction". One may let the other guy do what he wants and stay out of his way; stand up to the other guy and take the hit head on and hope you survive the impact; or stand up to the other guy but deflect his charge in such a way that it acts to his determent.

In every 2v2 game I have seen in FIRST, a key metric has been the degree to which one can maneuver in the presence of direct opposition (the proverbial pushing match / tug'o'war / carpet melter). This is why we see FIRST robots with six-motor drive trains that shift on the fly into ultra low gear. This is why we continue to strive for wheels or tracks with the best friction properties vs carpet and HDPE.

As long as there are going to be two other robots with a vested interest in preventing your robot from doing what you want, FIRST competitions will continue to be dressed up tractor pulls. As teams strive to keep a competitive edge in this regard they will all eventually run into certain barriers, i.e. the physical laws that govern our reality and the constraints set forth by FIRST. Once we've all maxed out our mu and squeezed every bit of power out of the kit motors, the only place left to go is, quite literally, up.

We'll go from tractor pull bots to sumo bots. Some teams are already on the way. It's not good. It's not bad. It's not ungracious. It's competition. It's invention. It's engineering. Teams are seeking the best solution within the constraints of the problem.

That's the way I see it.

-Joel

[KenWittlief]

the only time you are allowed to be aggresive is when you have the potential to score points, and the other team is preventing you, like king of the hill last year - if you were blocking the ramp, you were fair game for a bashing

but if another team is scoring points by manipulating scoring objects, then running into them or bashing them would be considered attempted damage, being un-necessarily aggressive, and poor form.

The year that really started the head to head confrontations between bots was 1999 - the puck - you had to be ontop of the puck to get extra points or a multipler (I forget which) and this was the first time we really saw some pushing and shoving and proverbial hair pulling at a FIRST event

in fact it was pretty tame in the seeding rounds, but in the playoffs bots got knocked off, dragged off, RIPPED off, sometimes leaving a trail of parts across the floor.

in this years game, the only time I would expect to see shoving matches would be if a bot was blocking a corral opening, or trying to control access to the chinup bar. If someone comes over and bashes you while you are herding balls, or placing the 2X ball, I would expect them to be disqualified.

[Joel Glidden]

In 2002, it was stated explicity by FIRST that it was permissible and probably a good idea to ram a robot that was trying to dump a basket full of balls into a goal.

Vigorous contact (on the guy who is about to score) != intentional damage

It's just like football. You can hit the guy with the ball. That's defense. You can't go and smash the kicker while he's doing his nails on the sidelines. That's intentional damage.

-Joel

[KenWittlief]

In 2002, it was stated explicity by FIRST that it was permissible and probably a good idea to ram a robot that was trying to dump a basket full of balls into a goal.

i would have to see that in the manual - I dont remember that at all. I know they said you should build a rugged robot that year, with those heavy goals being dragged around

but 'a good idea to ram a robot trying to score' ? I think I still have my 2002 manual around here somewhere :c)

[Joel Glidden]

It was on the QnA board, Ken. The question was something like,

Q: Is it legal to ram an opponent who is about to deliver balls in a goal?

A: Yes. See rule <R01>.

-Joel

[KenWittlief]

well, ok - legal is one thing, encourageing them to do so is another. before 1999 teams tried to win matches by scoring points. Teams that rammed other bots or did nothing but interfere with the other team often got BOOED!

there are many examples of teams helping an opponent, for example, in 98 I saw a bot tip over halfway, and it was helpless.

the opponent came right over and pushed it back upright, so it could continue to play the match - they didnt want to win by default.

the crowd was on its FEET after that - talk about good sportsmanship!

[Joel Glidden]

Last year there was quite the controversy regarding teams helping their opponents (read collusion).

Sorry. Off topic. I know.

-Joel

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well, ok - legal is one thing, encourageing them to do so is another.

Since 2002, the announcers have been encouraging more aggressive play at every event that I have attended.

When the rules book states that you should make your robot "robust" to withstand "vigorous robot interaction," I find it hard to believe that you will be disqualified or booed when you engage in vigorous robot interaction that furthers game objectives.

IMHO this year's game is going to be much rougher than last year's game, which was an extremely vigorous contest.

Let me make sure I get the contra opinion straight.

If I design a robot that can snag all of the small balls (bonus balls included) in autonomy, the opponent alliance is expected to let me park in front of my alliance station and deliver them to the human player at my own pace for the next 1:45. And, when my alliance partner goes over to cap the goal, the opponent alliance is expected to let that happen as well.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

in this years game, the only time I would expect to see shoving matches would be if a bot was blocking a corral opening, or trying to control access to the chinup bar. If someone comes over and bashes you while you are herding balls, or placing the 2X ball, I would expect them to be disqualified.

I disagree with this analysis.
I expect there will be a great deal of defense in all aspects of the game.
If I decide to cap your "big goal" early in the match to prevent your HPs from scoring... I could then spend the rest of the match blocking you from getting to it. In this case... hits would occur. On stairs...

Anyone else notice the first thing the "kit drivetrain" did during kickoff was drive off the side of the 6" platform sideways? That would be a nasty fall for anyone with a high CG.

Note: I'm not advocating playing dirty, or being overly rough/destructive. We on 229 play clean, but we do play hard. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Build them robust folks... this game is more like '99 than '01.


John

edit: I agree with Joel's above analogy. I think it applies well in this case. If you are scoring... my stopping you from scoring is LEGAL DEFENSE. /edit

Our robot was shaped like a wedge last year in stack attack... its a simple and easy design (we were rookies... so easy was good for us)... it works fairly well, but its a little top heavy... we almost tipped ours last year going up the ramp...