Team 39 building 469 stopper solution (Available in Las Vegas)

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Frank Neuperger

Hmm perhaps intelligence to GDC of he existence of loop bots drove the increase of hold-back to 65 lbs. I had wondered why they did that at the late stage and perhaps this was the reason.... so that teams could make countermeasures changes or do their own loop mechanism. Anyone think of a better reason for that late rule change. With 65 lbs, you can almost build a full robot.

Discussion/debate is invited.

Team Update #11 increased the Withholding Allowance to 65 lbs in response to the record snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Many teams lost a week plus of build time near ship day as schools closed and states of emergency were declared.

[Frank Neuperger]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

Team Update #11 increased the Withholding Allowance to 65 lbs in response to the record snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Many teams lost a week plus of build time near ship day as schools closed and states of emergency were declared.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware.

I suppose we can be thankful for the storms in triggering the additional hold-back mechanism.
This will surely allow more effective countermeasures against loop bots.

[RRLedford]

Team 3135 came close to choosing a loop bot design at the brainstorming stage. We finally bailed on it because it seemed too risky with respect to the rules.
We had already completed a similar concept in FTC Chicago that caught 15 balls right out of the drop chute, and even caught the yellow ball later. Our shooter was just too weak and erratic though, so we only took second place.

With FRC, we could not clearly interpret whether a gravity powered ball re-director chute could be rotated for targeting to either goal (as 469's flipper does), without violating the rules. So, 496's stationary 2-way chute with a flipper to steer balls to either side works well - smart! Our team also felt that, beside risky, it was also in conflict with the "spirit" of the game, and so the idea got voted down.

Hats off to #469 for taking the risk and confirming the legality of this scheme - we were too timid to gamble. Meanwhile, the neutralizing concepts must be worked out. We did consider these thoroughly while we still entertained doing the looper scheme.
We had assumed that the bot's re-directing chute would have to remain stationary while "shedding" a ball toward one goal or other. We assumed balls would be "INSIDE OUR PERIMETER" by more than 3" at this stage, so any moving mechanism touching the ball would give a penalty. After "shedding" a ball from our static chute toward one goal, I had assumed the rules allowed us to then re-point our chute, just before next ball arrived, toward whichever goal seemed least defendable. Since 469 never turns their ball chute once it's positioned on the platform, they avoid the penalty of manipulating balls that are inside their perimeter. However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?
Now as to defending this:
1) Can a fast defender bot sit centered in their zone and intercept balls based on anticipating which way 469 points their ball flipper? I think so, but I can't tell how long into their cycle they wait to commit as to which goal they are targeting? It seems to be VERY last second commit for diverting balls left or right on the chute. Plus, the defender must not only intercept balls, but also clear balls from their zone while two opponents are harassing them - not so easy!

2) can a hump navigator bot go up on (or adjacent to) the climber platform , latch on to a pipe, and obstruct the flow of the balls coming through 469's ball chute, or even poke it out of the air before it arrives on their their chute? Risky, as contacting 469 in any way could be a penalty. Perhaps a "wall bot" that's wide enough to block their trajectory toward either side? Not so easy though, as they (wisely) chose to drop balls onto the hump to gain better horizontal shot velocity, which also gives them a harder-to-block, wider angle of chute discharge. ***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT.
3) My favorite idea at this stage it to "poke a stick" through their chute at the appropriate spot to stop ball flow through it. Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this.***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?

The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

I am not sure if they ever do actuate their mechanism with a ball in their perimeter or not. Someone who has studied the video closer or seen the mechanism in person would have to attest to that.

[Frank Neuperger]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

Dick,

469's mechanism appears to be entirely inside of their bumper zone. How do we penetrate their bumper zone without exceeding ours by the thickness of 2 bumpers. As such, it seems like non contact shakers and fans seem to be the only physical way so far that a single countermeasures robot can disrupt balls from going either way. Sitting on one side of hump covers only one side.

[Cory]

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Cory

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

I agree that preventing them from scoring does little, but I'm wondering if a ducted fan could be used to deflect the ball coming off of the return just enough to prevent them from aquiring the ball.

[sportzkrazzy]

What if your kicker has a short cycle time.. say something a little under 2 sec. Do you think you could grab a ball and blast it into them point blank to start this resonance? How stable is it?

[Rizner]

I have seen a robot at the Florida Regional build with a 'ramp' top made of surgical tubing which redirected balls after they had fallen, although I can't remember it's team number / name. If you had two of those, each on a side of a bump, able to stay in place when the balls dropped onto 469's mechanism the balls would drop from them onto the 'ramps' and back the other direction. Very unlikely alliance to be put up against 469, but an idea..

[sportzkrazzy]

Can't have more than one bot in the far zone rizner. I think it was 1649 though.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Rizner

I have seen a robot at the Florida Regional build with a 'ramp' top made of surgical tubing which redirected balls after they had fallen, although I can't remember it's team number / name. If you had two of those, each on a side of a bump, able to stay in place when the balls dropped onto 469's mechanism the balls would drop from them onto the 'ramps' and back the other direction. Very unlikely alliance to be put up against 469, but an idea..

As long as one of them didn't mind getting a red card for their efforts.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

As long as one of them didn't mind getting a red card for their efforts.

Not if they're still on the bump.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Not if they're still on the bump.

Then their rebounding surface would be above 469's chute outlet.