If you could Breakaway all over again...

[BJT]

We converted from a vac to a pincher roller at our regional. it worked well but was a few inches narrower than if it had been designed into the machine from the start.
I really wish we would have put a 254 style hanger the robot. I thought of pretty much the same thing but couldn't figure out how to power it fast enough. realizing it could have been pto powered off the drive motors was a big DOH! moment, oh well.
It's all about speed. lots of teams could score and hang, the good ones just do it really fast.

[sithmonkey13]

Where to start:
1. Hit the team captain, who decided on several failed aspects:

a. We had an infrared sensor on the front to detect when a ball comes and automatically kick, however, once it was on we no longer could cross the hump, and when asking the captain to test it prior to shipping, he said, "It goes over."

b. the captain put a pall on our winch system, so if we overshot (which we did every time it didn't jam) we could back up and get on the bar. (One note, our winch system in practice was exceptionally fast, so overshooting was a major issue that should have been fixed, I am a major proponent of never doing this again since I was the person who controlled the kick power and winching)

2. Focused more on driving and kicking then the hang
3. Eliminated one setting on our multi-powered kicker (it was three pneumatic pistions, with settings for one piston, two pistons, and all pistons to fire, with springs aiding the pistons). The lower power didn't work, and we should have made medium and high powered kicks better.
4. Brought spare omni wheels and wheel brackets, as ours got damaged in shipping and from out team captain doing serious damage to the frame by driving into the tower
5. Had all Craftsmen brand tools, for our mentors bought the cheap Walmart tool set. We mostly used one frosh's Craftsmen ratchet set, but in competition, we shattered and screwdriver (sending pieces into other pits) trying to bend out chassis back in shape (in hind sight, we probably should have used something different, but it was hilarious, and still is funny to reminisce about.)
All in all, we had a bad year, but hopefully 1178 will do better in 2011.

[Jester Jackster]

easy tell first to get rid of the bumps! that would be nice, that way the game would be less of a failure. at least then no one would flip over.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jester Jackster

easy tell first to get rid of the bumps! that would be nice, that way the game would be less of a failure. at least then no one would flip over.

Then where's the point? You'd just drive balls into a hole in the wall. That's not exactly challenging.

[kstl99]

Originally Posted by Jester Jackster

easy tell first to get rid of the bumps! that would be nice, that way the game would be less of a failure. at least then no one would flip over.

The bumps were one of the important engineering challenges of the game. We had a low center of gravity and have never flipped over in 3 events and 2 offseason events.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Jester Jackster

easy tell first to get rid of the bumps! that would be nice, that way the game would be less of a failure. at least then no one would flip over.

Well, that doesn't really answer the question in the first place.

But I'd have to say Chris is right. If there were no bumps, then any one with a rolling chassis could effectively play the game.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Jester Jackster

easy tell first to get rid of the bumps! that would be nice, that way the game would be less of a failure. at least then no one would flip over.

A robot that flipped was the failure, not the game. This game was excellent. Meeting a design challenge is the whole point of FRC.

[AdamHeard]

I think the no bumps is an interesting point, it would have been an easy way to solve the flaw in this game; but not the right way in my opinion.

Moreso than any recent year, many teams could not play the game. Why? The harsh intake rules. I view FIRST went too hard on this, at the expense of lower end teams.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I think the no bumps is an interesting point, it would have been an easy way to solve the flaw in this game; but not the right way in my opinion.

Moreso than any recent year, many teams could not play the game. Why? The harsh intake rules. I view FIRST went too hard on this, at the expense of lower end teams.

I agree with this as well. I think they did not want to see teams that could completely dominate a ball and power it up into the goal. They wanted the ball to be vulnerable at all times. The rules did the best they could to ensure teams never really had COMPLETE control over a ball, but the best teams still figured out how to do it (ie: 254, 148, 217, 1114). What it meant for the lower end teams was that they could hardly interact with the game piece in a way they wished to. A lot of it was bumping and praying you timed it right.

-Brando

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I agree with this as well. I think they did not want to see teams that could completely dominate a ball and power it up into the goal. They wanted the ball to be vulnerable at all times. The rules did the best they could to ensure teams never really had COMPLETE control over a ball, but the best teams still figured out how to do it (ie: 254, 148, 217, 1114). What it meant for the lower end teams was that they could hardly interact with the game piece in a way they wished to. A lot of it was bumping and praying you timed it right.

I'm a little confused why the apparent intent was for no one to have such ball control. Not being able to really take hold of a game piece just makes the game sloppier. It's implementing a task that "is hard and looks easy" and would only make the game less watchable than if it were a touch easier to control the ball.

The game didn't play out that way and I think that was a lot better as a result thanks to the IFI magnets, but I wonder if the game would be a lot worse with just random shop vacs versus backspin rollers.

[EricH]

No bumps != no flips. I've seen lots of flipped robots in my time, even on flat fields. The one year I didn't see one was 2009--and it's a bit harder to flip with one of those trailers and low traction as factors.

If I was to change one rule, I'd go with changing the suspension points up a bit to encourage more suspensions. 2337 was one of only 2 robots to ever be the base of one in competition, and very few were even capable of being a suspension base; more were capable of suspending, but didn't have a base.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'm a little confused why the apparent intent was for no one to have such ball control. Not being able to really take hold of a game piece just makes the game sloppier. It's implementing a task that "is hard and looks easy" and would only make the game less watchable than if it were a touch easier to control the ball.

The game didn't play out that way and I think that was a lot better as a result thanks to the IFI magnets, but I wonder if the game would be a lot worse with just random shop vacs versus backspin rollers.

I am by no means saying that THE intent was that no team should really be able to hold a game piece well, but based on how strict and limiting the rules were, thats what I implied.

As for why that would be the case, I imagine the GDC thought the game would be easily dominated if teams were allowed to manhandle balls. They also may have wanted to just add another degree of difficulty to the game. This is just speculation.

-Brando

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by EricH

If I was to change one rule, I'd go with changing the suspension points up a bit to encourage more suspensions. 2337 was one of only 2 robots to ever be the base of one in competition, and very few were even capable of being a suspension base; more were capable of suspending, but didn't have a base.

Agreed! The time spent to create a suspension wasn't even worth the points.

I would agree that the harsh intake rules and bumps made basic robots useless in some matches. We have had tons of matches at events when you would look at the teams with you and wonder, "what can they do?" Front striker was an okay idea, but some teams couldn't even herd into the goal. Defense was another option, but what if they can't move zones and they have to start far with no autonomous? 2008-2009 were really easy for all robots as driving laps or defense was something every robot to do. This year was harsh on teams that had no offense and no zone changes.

[Chris is me]

I really seem hesitant to latch onto the idea that we should make the game more accessible for teams that can't even assemble the kit chassis (enough to change zones) or put a flat piece of lexan on the front of the robot (become a push cart). Were there really a lot of teams that not only couldn't change zones at all, but they couldn't push balls in front? I would agree completely if the kitbot didn't climb bumps out of the box, though.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I really seem hesitant to latch onto the idea that we should make the game more accessible for teams that can't even assemble the kit chassis (enough to change zones) or put a flat piece of lexan on the front of the robot (become a push cart). Were there really a lot of teams that not only couldn't change zones at all, but they couldn't push balls in front? I would agree completely if the kitbot didn't climb bumps out of the box, though.

Yes and yes. We played with teams and I saw teams that were we have one zone to play. And from scouting I have written, "They had a lot of trouble herding into the goal/can't" so many times.

Chris as I remember 2791 wasn't able to change zones at one point!