High score of the season

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

That is like saying if you build a high enough robot where the ball does not touch it when it drives over the ball there is no penalty. Its still a 3 inch violation. But even if i am wrong which i left my self to be corrected because there was no clear video of how the robot works I think it breaks the spirit of the rule. My biggest problem with this robot is they wedge themselves under the tower and use a rule meant for hanging to accomplish this task. Its clear they are not trying to hang early.

Where is it in the rules that it says "You can only break the frame perimeter, if and only if, you are attempting to hang"? And, you said "the spirit of the rule", which I don't agree with. Was the rule not changed until after a question about a design like this was posted on the Q&A? FIRST is here to teach us to think outside of the box. If we come up with an amazing game changing design that is hindered by a slight rule, it seems like they are all for it.

Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it. I don't mean to sound cruel, sorry about that.

-Rion

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

That is like saying if you build a high enough robot where the ball does not touch it when it drives over the ball there is no penalty. Its still a 3 inch violation. But even if i am wrong which i left my self to be corrected because there was no clear video of how the robot works I think it breaks the spirit of the rule. My biggest problem with this robot is they wedge themselves under the tower and use a rule meant for hanging to accomplish this task. Its clear they are not trying to hang early.

In my opinion, in a game where 99% of robots look and perform nearly identically... I'm refreshed and thrilled that the GDC accommodated for a gutsy, outside the box strategy like this one.

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

In my opinion, in a game where 99% of robots look and perform nearly identically... I'm refreshed and thrilled that the GDC accommodated for a gutsy, outside the box strategy like this one.

Indeed. Atleast last year you got a nice variety of shooters/turrets and dumpers. This year there are kickers, kickers, and more kickers.

[Zme]

while there is not a variety in the type of robot (i.e. mainly kickers) there is a variety in how they perform, there are some kickers that can't clear a bump, there are some that are variable tension, there are some that loft a ball all the way down field and there are some that are down right dangerous for humans to be around with out proper safety precautions. its not what you have on the bot per say, its what you do with it that counts.

now as for 469 winning all pushing matches that remains to be seen. i'd like to see what happens when a team with a similar drive comes flipping through the opposite end of the tunnel at full speed. it may be a case of immovable object and irresistible force, any guesses on what would give first?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Zme

now as for 469 winning all pushing matches that remains to be seen. i'd like to see what happens when a team with a similar drive comes flipping through the opposite end of the tunnel at full speed. it may be a case of immovable object and irresistible force, any guesses on what would give first?

If 469 is wedging against the top of the tunnel there's no way you're going to move them. They have a huge advantage in increased normal force as well as being physically constrained by the field. Nobody is going to have so much traction that they can overcome that.

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by Cory

If 469 is wedging against the top of the tunnel there's no way you're going to move them. They have a huge advantage in increased normal force as well as being physically constrained by the field. Nobody is going to have so much traction that they can overcome that.

Maybe it's not traction you need... F=m*a So would a robot that weighs around 110 pounds(maybe 120, which would put it 130 with the battery) so with enough acceleration, (driving right under the tunnel) couldn't they pop it out, and then push them backwards enough to disrupt the strategy? (Not saying I would recommend this, I'm just saying it's possible.)

Just my $.02

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Formerly Famous

Maybe it's not traction you need... F=m*a So would a robot that weighs around 110 pounds(maybe 120, which would put it 130 with the battery) so with enough acceleration, (driving right under the tunnel) couldn't they pop it out, and then push them backwards enough to disrupt the strategy? (Not saying I would recommend this, I'm just saying it's possible.)

Just my $.02

Keep in mind that 469 is able to apply a force in opposite direction that this robot is pushing. Your acceleration (and therefor your force in the "pushing axis") is hinged upon the force you apply to the floor (very same F=ma equation you mentioned). That force is limited by the friction that the robot can generate, which is governed by the coefficient of friction of the wheels and the normal force of the robot. Because of 469's mechanism, their normal force is going to be much larger than the pushing robot, and thus they're going to have a much higher "pushing force" than the robot trying to dislodge them. And on top of that they have the forces being applied to them by the tower.

I don't think you'll see 469 budge.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Formerly Famous

Maybe it's not traction you need... F=m*a So would a robot that weighs around 110 pounds(maybe 120, which would put it 130 with the battery) so with enough acceleration, (driving right under the tunnel) couldn't they pop it out, and then push them backwards enough to disrupt the strategy? (Not saying I would recommend this, I'm just saying it's possible.)

Just my $.02

I think between bumpers and the kit motors, you're effectively only going to be able to scoot them an inch or so. The bumpers I believe severely decrease the impulse.

Obstructing the tower entirely is not impossible with the right drivetrain and careful programming.

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by Formerly Famous

Maybe it's not traction you need... F=m*a So would a robot that weighs around 110 pounds(maybe 120, which would put it 130 with the battery) so with enough acceleration, (driving right under the tunnel) couldn't they pop it out, and then push them backwards enough to disrupt the strategy? (Not saying I would recommend this, I'm just saying it's possible.)

Just my $.02

Frictional force is found by taking the force and multiplying it by the coefficient of friction. Really, they're equally important. Having a coefficient of 1.5 will help you a lot more than if you had a coefficient of .5.

[Rion Atkinson]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Keep in mind that 469 is able to apply a force in opposite direction that this robot is pushing. Your acceleration (and therefor your force in the "pushing axis") is hinged upon the force you apply to the floor (very same F=ma equation you mentioned). That force is limited by the friction that the robot can generate, which is governed by the coefficient of friction of the wheels and the normal force of the robot. Because of 469's mechanism, their normal force is going to be much larger than yours, and they're going to have a much higher normal force (and therefor a larger "pushing force") than the robot trying to dislodge them. And on top of that they have the forces being applied to them by the tower.

I don't think you'll see 469 budge.

Very good point... I hadn't considered them pushing against you at the same time.

I think this may be the last time I talk about physics to a bunch of people a whole lot smarter that me...

[Zme]

take a look at 703, they are the kind of powerhouse pusher that i was thinking of. my understanding of this is if you hit things hard and often they break so while it is not very gracious or professional, a battering ram style robot could weaken them through metal fatigue if given enough time to do so. also, if they are already moving the tower/platform some wouldn't hitting them hard do it more and potentially cause field damage? its kind of hard to say not having actually seen this mechanism up close but from my experience with FIRST, as soon as you say something can't be done someone will go and do it just to prove you wrong.

either way though, great job, great design, you've made us think and hopefully learn, keep it up 469

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Zme

so while it is not very gracious or professional, a battering ram style robot could weaken them through metal fatigue if given enough time to do so.

And probably earn a red card and a massive amount of ill will for their trouble. Why would anyone try to purposely destroy another team's machine knowing how much time and effort went into it and how you would feel if someone did the same to your machine?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

And probably earn a red card and a massive amount of ill will for their trouble. Why would anyone try to purposely destroy another team's machine knowing how much time and effort went into it and how you would feel if someone did the same to your machine?

Though to be completely fair, intentional destruction and hard, "wasn't legal until 2009 but is now" ramming defense isn't something you can tell the difference between.

[Zme]

i am in no way condoning the action, and for what its worth we can't fit into the tunnel to even attempt it,

i am simply saying that over time their mechanism will weaken, unless they watch it they could run into issues,

in reading the rules i don't recall anything about ramming violations though, can someone point me at the rule please? its good to have that sort of thing on hand at times

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Zme

in reading the rules i don't recall anything about ramming violations though, can someone point me at the rule please? its good to have that sort of thing on hand at times

This is the closest thing we have this year:

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD