Pitfalls to avoid when brainstorming the 2011 game and robot

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by EricH

No. Kidding. Back in 2000-2002, the balls started against the walls and rails. Teams slurped them right up ...

One word - BUMPERS.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

One word - BUMPERS.

Re-quoted for emphasis.

The bumpers offer a very unique problem when dealing with game objects resting along the walls.

-Brando

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Re-quoted for emphasis.

The bumpers offer a very unique problem when dealing with game objects resting along the walls.

-Brando

But what does that mean?

Does that mean the bumpers are annoying or -
does that mean that not enough time and thought is given to them?

How are they a pitfall to be avoided?

Jane

[IKE]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

But what does that mean?

Does that mean the bumpers are annoying or -
does that mean that not enough time and thought is given to them?

How are they a pitfall to be avoided?

Jane

The bumpers are essentially think enough that they keep the robot a bit further off of the wall. For 2010, once you include bumper thickness and 1" of wheel/chassis width, you are essentially at the center-lin of the ball. Contacts at that point tend to actually drive the ball into the wall as opposed from peeling it off of the wall. This is due to wall friction causing the ball to spin away from your bot and into the wall. Even really good collecting mechanisms had trouble with this.
This was especially bad in the corner goals as the padding caused another edge to block the ball from going into the goal. Thus teams struggling to push the ball in those last foot.
Visually this made the robots look quite clumsy and added an unexpected degreee of difficulty to collecting and the "simple task" of pushing a ball into the goal.

The pitfall to avoid here would be testing a prototype or concept without the offset induced by the bumpers. There were a couple ball collecting ideas that were fine in the past (pre-bumper), that would have significant difficulty with the "wall manuever" if they were moved out 3 inches...

[JaneYoung]

Thank you, Ike. You just provided a post that can be referenced for information regarding the bumpers and the pitfalls. Cool.

Jane

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by IKE

This was especially bad in the corner goals as the padding caused another edge to block the ball from going into the goal. Thus teams struggling to push the ball in those last foot.
Visually this made the robots look quite clumsy and added an unexpected degreee of difficulty to collecting and the "simple task" of pushing a ball into the goal.

This problem had a pretty simple solution for teams with vacuums - just some concave pieces of lexan angled in ever so slightly (10 degrees). That way pushing a ball straight into a goal rolls it toward the center of your robot. In our case that would contact it with the vacuum.

Not particularly sure how this applies to a pincher, if at all, but it was certainly a game feature that could be accounted for and fixed in design. It was probably my favorite robot feature this year for my team.

[Cyberphil]

Another thing that is not really mentioned here:

Robot orientation.

Every year, 103 creates a, "Long," robot, or one in which the front of the robot is the shorter side. For some games that requires a lot of game pieces to pick up, this is definitely not ideal. If you look at every robot on Einstein in 2009, you will notice that they are, "Wide." They were the robot that was able to pick up the most balls the fastest, because if you cannot pick up game pieces fast, you cannot possibly score fast.


I hope that for a post season project next year that we can create our first wide bot.

[Joe Schornak]

One thing that my team seems to always forget is to make the game object interface as wide as the front of the robot. In 2009, our ball collector was very narrow, and thus only able to accommodate a single ball at a time. To pick up a ball, we had to very carefully move the robot so that the ball was directly in front of the collector before moving to pick it up, no easy feat in a game as rough as Lunacy!

In 2010, we designed our ball handler to hold the ball at a specific point in front of the kicker with two parallel wheels, which would theoretically allow for more accurate kicks. In reality, it simply made acquiring balls in the game environment nearly impossible. During the off-season, we upgraded the ball handler and kicker to be much wider, with astronomically better results.

Of course, this applies mostly to small, ball-shaped objects. Traffic cones, on the other hand, are a far different story...

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

But what does that mean?

Does that mean the bumpers are annoying or -
does that mean that not enough time and thought is given to them?

How are they a pitfall to be avoided?

Jane

Ike handled your last question exactly as I would have, so I will leave it at that.


Bumpers are somewhat annoying, but its just another part of the game that needs to be accounted for. I think as bumpers have become a staple in FRC, we've seen teams slowly start to give them the proper time they require.

When bumpers first appeared, we saw teams that had bumpers falling off left and right, and we saw teams that had bumpers so securely fashioned to their robot that it literally would take an act of god to remove them. Obviously both extremes had huge disadvantages (penalties for bumpers falling off if they were too loose, or hours spent removin/reattaching bumpers to weigh the robot for inspection if they were not easily removable).

As time has progressed, we now see nice and elegant bumper designs popping up everywhere. Most teams now design bumpers so that they can be added/removed in a matter of minutes. We see bumpers that can change from red/blue or vice versa with a flip of a piece of fabric. It's taken a little while, but teams are falling into a groove now of efficient and elegant bumper design.

Like I said bumpers are somewhat annoying, but its just something teams need to address from the beginning as they are designing their robot. For me, it is painfully obvious when a team hasn't put much thought into their bumpers when I get to a competition, and I'm sure it's just as painful for the team to get through the season that way.

-Brando

[IKE]

We make our "object manipulators" removeable. Within the build season we will typically due several prototypes, and a couple "production" manipulators in the search for bettter collecting/control. Then it will likely get tweaked several times (some years more drastic than others) during the competition season. Assuming you have found the "ideal manipulator" is a big pitfall. Event the really good manipulators that I saw got tweaked throughout the season.

[Chris Fultz]

Avoid "Not reading the manual" before you start creating a strategy.
Avoid "Designing a robot" before you have an agreed strategy.
Avoid "Not being all together on a strategy" before moving forward with a design.

One key, esspecialy for newer teams, is to understand that the game rule book and design requirements are requirements, not suggestions.

You must fit inside the space requirements.
You must be under the weight requiremets.
You can only use the approved motors, epectronics, wire sizes, etc.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Cyberphil

Another thing that is not really mentioned here:

Robot orientation.

Every year, 103 creates a, "Long," robot, or one in which the front of the robot is the shorter side. For some games that requires a lot of game pieces to pick up, this is definitely not ideal. If you look at every robot on Einstein in 2009, you will notice that they are, "Wide." They were the robot that was able to pick up the most balls the fastest, because if you cannot pick up game pieces fast, you cannot possibly score fast.


I hope that for a post season project next year that we can create our first wide bot.

Incorrect, 1(77) out of 12 was a long bot that year. Oddly enough it was the team that said during the concept generation phase of robot design that year, "No widebody has ever made Einstein..."

Wish I was making this up.

[Mike Soukup]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

Incorrect, 1(77) out of 12 was a long bot that year. Oddly enough it was the team that said during the concept generation phase of robot design that year, "No widebody has ever made Einstein..."

Wish I was making this up.

Incorrect as well. This robot looks pretty wide. And so does this one. Is that Einstein I see in the background?

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

Incorrect, 1(77) out of 12 was a long bot that year. Oddly enough it was the team that said during the concept generation phase of robot design that year, "No widebody has ever made Einstein..."

Wish I was making this up.

Isn't that quite a twisted fate?

But the main point that I was making is that it is important to take into consideration the orientation, and how each bot will interact, move, and preform with other robots.

Another key thing that many teams did not notice is that a wide wheel base created a much greater rotational force. Because of the greater distance between the pivot point and the wheels, a much greater torque was in effect, making it easier for wide teams to turn. And in that game, the two driving things that killed were speed and agility.

Ahh, another sometimes unseen effect of one design over another. I am sure some teams thought of this, but for most (103 included), that effect was not brought up at all.

[FIRSTgirl675]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Make sure you THOROUGHLY understand the rules of the game before you actually start designing the robot.
It completely stuns me when I see a team show up at an event with a misdesgined robot that is not prepared to compete in this game due to lack of understanding of how to properly pay the game that could have easily been solved by simply taking a day or so to understand how to play the game instead of rushing in with a vague idea of what to do due to the animation.

Agreed. Once the game is released we spend a good three hours or so focusing on learning all the rules and quizzing each other on them before brainstorming starts. It makes it a lot easier in the long run.