Should FIRST address "ramp bots"?

[Dave Flowerday]

How is building a robot with ramps on the side any different than building a robot with 6 motors on the drivetrain? I've seen both types used to tip over other robots (in fact, I think I've seen more tipping done by robots without ramps, because those with ramps are usually playing offense, not defense).

For those teams who prefer to play offensively by manipulating the game pieces, ramps are one of the few protective measures they have against teams who prefer to play defensively and constantly push everyone around.

[Greg Needel]

FIRST does not like to make rules dealing with specific robot design (look at the Q&A) i think it basically comes down to the individual team looking at the rules and the strategy they want to play. if they build a wedge bot and get DQed on intentional flipping they knew the rules when they build the bot and have to deal with them. but if they just play very effectively against you and use the advantage of the wedge then i see no reason to limit the creativity of a team's design for a problem that "might" occur once in a while. for this same reason there was never a rule on how you could pick up tetras this year

[Mike Ciance]

i've been pretty angry about wedges for a long time. i was actually thinking of starting a thread like this. glad to see that i'm not the only one.

nearly every year i've been involved in FIRST - 3 out of 4 - i've seen wedge robots that were built with the obvious intention of getting under other robots and pushing or flipping them.

wedges give robots a clear and unfair advantage. shouldn't a pushing match be decided by the strength of the drivetrains, rather than who makes a cheap shot?

we put a lot of work into our drivetrain. nobody could push us back... as long as we had all our wheels on the ground. on friday at nationals this year a wedgebot got under us and pushed us halfway across the field with little effort. at both of the regionals we attended we saw other teams getting pushed around by wedges.

in this game and in games of the past there have been robots with wedges that obviously have no function in the game itself. what reason is there for a wedge other than to get under other robots? wedges are just as unfair as pinning, and i can't imagine why FIRST hasn't already made rules against it.

rep me how you want, i stand by what i've said

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Mike Ciance

we put a lot of work into our drivetrain. nobody can push us back... as long as we have all our wheels on the ground. on friday at nationals this year a wedgebot got under us and pushed us halfway across the field with little effort. at both of the regionals we attended we saw other teams getting pushed around by wedges.

in this game and in games of the past there have been robots with wedges that obviously have no function in the game itself. what reason is there for a wedge other than to get under other robots? wedges are just as unfair as pinning, and i can't imagine why FIRST hasn't already made rules against it.

So you want to be able to push anybody around that you please, and you want FIRST to make a rule requiring that teams have a good pushing surface for you to make contact with?

Originally Posted by Fictional Offensive Team

we put a lot of work into our arm. nobody can score faster than us... as long as we have all our wheels on the ground. on friday at nationals this year a drivetrain-bot pushed us halfway across the field with little effort. at both of the regionals we attended we saw other teams getting pushed around by drivetrain-bots.

in this game and in games of the past there have been robots with massive drivetrains that obviously have no function in the game itself. what reason is there for a massive drivetrain other than to push other robots? drivetrain-bots are just as unfair as pinning, and i can't imagine why FIRST hasn't already made rules against it.

I imagine my slightly modified quote here sounds ridiculous to you... and that is how your statement sounds to those of us who don't put all our effort into a drivetrain.

[DarkJedi613]

Originally Posted by Mike Ciance

wedges give robots a clear and unfair advantage. shouldn't a pushing match be decided by the strength of the drivetrains, rather than who makes a cheap shot?

we put a lot of work into our drivetrain. nobody could push us back... as long as we had all our wheels on the ground. on friday at nationals this year a wedgebot got under us and pushed us halfway across the field with little effort. at both of the regionals we attended we saw other teams getting pushed around by wedges.

in this game and in games of the past there have been robots with wedges that obviously have no function in the game itself. what reason is there for a wedge other than to get under other robots? wedges are just as unfair as pinning, and i can't imagine why FIRST hasn't already made rules against it.

How does it give an "unfair advantage"? As long as anyone can put a "wedge" on their robot it is not unfair. I don't see how you can say that since your drive train is more powerful that someone shouldn't be allowed to create a design to deflect the force from your robot. I believe our robot was the one that pushed you across the field on Friday. We designed the front and back of our robot as a sloped angel (I think 48 degrees from the base) for the sole reason of deflecting force. Last year we had some robot ram us and damage parts of our frame, by putting a sloped front on the robot a portion of the momentum of a robot is pushed up off the frame, and the rest is spread out throughout the entire frame instead of having two bars on the back take all the force (and most likely bend or break). If we had designed it to flip you, you would have been flipped, but instead we just pushed you back so that we could get to our loading zone.

I agree that the problem is not in the robots, but in the way they are driven.

[Evan Austin]

I see no problem with a ramp bot and if I was worried about other teams having them I would try and figure out some way to work around it. I think it can be a good thing because, as other people in this thread have said, it reduces the force acting against the robot. In years past I have seen robots get severely damaged from taking a hard hit. If the ramp can help reduce these forces, I would be in favor due to the decrease in damage to the driveline and other parts of the robot.

[DougHogg]

There are also disadvantages to wedges.

We put wedges on the sides of our robot so that when we were trying to cap, opponents would have trouble tipping us or shoving us around. However in the Archimedes quarter finals, our wedges worked against us. We were defending a goal that we owned and pushed into a robot to stop them from capping. Unfortunately we tipped the opponent and our alliance was dq'ed (disqualified). That happened to us twice in the same quarter final! However one of the opponents was also dq'ed for tipping in one of the matches making it a tie (both alliances dq'ed). We finally won the quarter-final, but, needless to say, being dq'ed twice in one quarter final didn't make our day.

The Archimedes referees were very strict about tipping if a robot had a wedge, and they didn't seem to have any trouble making a ruling. In our case, we were moving forward with a wedge, the opponent tipped, and we were dq'ed. I don't have any disagreement with their ruling. My point is that having a wedge is helpful when being pushed but obviously not helpful when you are doing the pushing and it gets you dq'ed.

On the positive side, this year, we saw some robots come at us so quickly that they caught some air when they hit our rear wedge and flew over us. We were happy that our robot didn't have to deal with the collisions that would have occurred if we hadn't had wedges.

I do think that the rules on pushing with a wedge need to be clearly spelled out (ie if you push with a wedge and a robot tips, you will be dq'ed) as the rules were applied very differently at different events.

Doug Hogg

[MattB703]

Doug

I agree with your last post completely. I am only concerned that the refs will need to determine if the wedge shaped bot was pushing or being pushed when the tipping incedent occured. This will not always be an easy call and not everyone will take their DQ as graciously as you have.

Matt B.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Mike Ciance

i've been pretty angry about wedges for a long time. ...
wedges give robots a clear and unfair advantage. shouldn't a pushing match be decided by the strength of the drivetrains, rather than who makes a cheap shot?

we put a lot of work into our drivetrain. nobody could push us back... as long as we had all our wheels on the ground. ... what reason is there for a wedge other than to get under other robots?

The main reason teams design wedges or wings on their robots is to provide themself a defense against a team who is ramming them. Many teams, including yours, rammed other teams in 2003. This was done to knock other teams from the HDPE platform during Stack Attack gameplay. Some teams rammed in 2004. Seeing teams make ramps or wedges on their robots is simply a passive defense against aggressive drivers who like to use their robot's momentum as a tool to play defense.

Now, if a ramp or wedge is used to get under another robot and continue to drive into them until they are flipped, then that is an illegal use of a ramp, imo.

Andy B.

[Lil' Lavery]

It all depends on the ramp and how it is used. Some ramps are great defensive tools, and do help center of gravity, but some are excessive or prove to be a tipping hazard. While Im sure 233's sloped edges were made for defense, I saw them once push another robot down, and heard they did at least one other time. Im not sure if they would have tipped these robot's anyway, but the ramps looked to be a very definate help to the tipping. Im also positive that they werent used intentionally. The tip I saw was during autonomous and of their own teammate.
Ramps that prove to be dangerous over the course of competition should be adressed, but not all ramps. If a team developes a record of using the ramp aggressively or of its ramp flipping other robots on several occasions that team should be instructed to do something about the ramp.
While ramps are often the simplest solution to opposing "bricks" and CG issues, their are countless others. Outriggers dont have to be ramps. in 2004 we had a "wheelie bar" that prevented us from tipping while climbing onto the platform to hang. This year Team 118 had small PVC tubes that curved down to the floor (they started parallel to the floor, and curved until they were perpendicular, so they couldnt be a ramp nor ramming spikes) that helped keep them from tipping. Also, our drive system this year was fantastic from keeping us from tipping.
For those who havnt seen it, it is a holonomic drive system, but instead of the wheels being mounted vertically along the 4 faces of the robot, they are mounted on a 20 degree angle in the 4 corners, allowing our "footprint" or Conservative Support Polygon to be as large as possible, as well as lowering the drive systems CG. Because of that, we never even came close to tipping. Also, by avoiding massive, heavy arms, ect. you significantly lower your CG.
As for defense against brick bots, there are a number of bumper designs that can beat them. Also, just having a faster, more maneuverable, or stronger robot will often do the trick. "Cattle plows" or designs that drive with a leading corner will also usually deflect the blow. Outriggers, or some form of device to "plant" you to the ground can be highly effective for holding ground against powerful bots as well (like the top of the ramp in stack attack, or the top platform last year). High traction drive systems, like many tank treads, can do a great deal to hinder bricks as well.

[EricH]

Please note that my team used wedges as defense...
I think that wedges are great as long as you know what you are getting into. 2003: We used wedges to hold us on the platform and to make sure we didn't slip backwards on the ramp. As long as you came up elsewhere or backed off, you were fine. If you came up on us and tipped, and we hadn't moved, that was your problem.
2005: Side wedges. If you saw us (and most of you probably did) you know that we only had one that could possibly be used as a tipper by us. If you came at us from the side, and you tipped (as one robot did in practice), that was your problem. In back, maybe or maybe not. And at least one team (number withheld) got up the steep side wedges hard enough to damage acrylic panels pretty badly.

However, there was one robot at L.A. Regional that was a low box with four wheels and a wedge that lowered. They were careful not to draw penalties, and that is good. However, at least once they lifted a goal. Not good.

Use of wedges depends how they are used. Tip a robot or two deliberately and get DQ'd. Accidentaly and get a warning.

[Joe Ross]

I can't say I've seen more wedges/ramps this year then in years past. I can remember at least 1 robot with a wedge/ramp that went far in the eliminations at nationals every year since at least 2000, and most years it's a few. 67 was a great example last year.

If we ban one of the simple machines from being used, I think we should ban wheels as well.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

If we ban one of the simple machines from being used, I think we should ban wheels as well.

Actually, that will fit in rather well with the planned "no fasteners" rule for next year...

Originally Posted by Greg Marra

This is an issue that could be addressed in game design. It seems to me that a robot with sloped sides would have trouble getting onto a raised platform; ala the 2004 game.

Of course, the other way to address it is to design a game where sloped sides are REQUIRED on every robot! Then everyone would be on the same level playing field (or sloped playing field, or whatever)

-dave

[pyroslev]

Originally Posted by EricH

2003: We used wedges to hold us on the platform and to make sure we didn't slip backwards on the ramp. As long as you came up elsewhere or backed off, you were fine. If you came up on us and tipped, and we hadn't moved, that was your problem.

History with a ramp:
In 2003 we also employed small ramp-like fins. THey were meant to make a robot beach on us and hold the hill. However, a robot ran up the small 6-in or so ramp fins and flipped almost over end. (We got the play of the day for that award by the way.)

Ramps are useful for many facets in many ways. To ban them would take the fun out of it. Just have the driver watch his CoG when near a ramp bot and it'll be okay.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

At both regionals I attended this year (St Louis and Midwest) I saw angled designs. At St. Louis there was a robot that was not made for the intention to tip robots. But when they found out that it was very good at it they did. I told the driver multiple times that this is not "battlebots" and it was totally against GP. We were paired with them twice. Thankfully they got hung up on tetras and didnt have the chance to tip any during our matches. At Midwest the intent was just the opposite. 111 had a suppubly designed robot. There slanted design was used in the exact same way ours was: stability. When they had their tetras up so high, just a tiny nudge would have sent them over. It was just an innovative design and weighed much less than ours. I am totally against the intent to disable a robot, just like the major majority of all FIRST participants.