The missing feature: A common thread

[ttldomination]

I also haven't people mention communication.

I feel like the powerhouses talk to each other. I'm not saying there's a magical forum where only the powerhouses post, but just through mentors knowing each other, students knowing each other, and alumni moving back and forth, the powerhouses must share ideas.

So at the end of the day, you're not just seeing the best robot built by team xxxx, but you're see the product of ideas from team xxxx, team yyyy, and team zzzz, but each team takes this feature and implements it differently.

This will obviously not play as much of a factor as having a full field or having quick machining capabilities, but I feel like somewhere down the line, talking out your ideas with multiple world class teams/mentors doesn't hurt either.

- Sunny G.

[EagleEngineer]

I understand that there are certain features that powerhouse teams have that can set them apart from other teams, but i think there are a lot of power house teams that do not have the drop down collector. 1717, 148, 118, 399, 987 (Before this weekend), just to name a few, did not have this. I think the reason why a teams robot is "powerhouse" is because of how effective it is at the game. For example 16 did not have a fly wheel, they used a catapult, but because it was implemented correctly (effective), they were "powerhouse". Though i understand your point about common design features that powerhouse teams have.

[MichaelBick]

We are by no means a powerhouse team, but these are things we found out that help, and that a lot of powerhouse teams, and we feel can benefit all teams.

1) The assumption that a CNC makes everything possible is false. I know for a fact that Team 4 Element has a CNC mill and lathe, and yet is not able to use them, because they lost their mentors who knew how to operate them. Furthermore, even 254 uses their regular lathes and mills often. If you read their build blogs, they do a lot of the machining work themselves. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=95347

2) Something that helped us do better this year, was pushing our motors to the limit. Instead of assuming a certain gear reduction was enough, for example we calculated how fast we wanted a ball to come up our elevator, figured out what gear reduction we wanted, and then figured out if we had enough torque. Do this with everything. DO THE MATH.

3) Build to your teams capabilities. If you have a mill or lathe, then design your robot around those machining capabilities. Also, it is easy to get sponsors if you work at it. Most people would be surprised how easy it is to get a 2D sponsor, and they can really help speed up your build.

4) Design within your teams capabilities. Using 254 as an example again, while many powerhouse teams decided to go with a turret, they instead went with a non moving shooter. Yet they made it effective, and I'm sure gained more practice time from that decision.

5) Gain from the experience of powerhouse teams. Reading the build blogs of 254 and 148, and the New Cool really helped our team to improve. Paying attention to CD also helps. For example, we went into the season not really sure how to build an effective WCD. We searched CD for help, and eventually found 973's CADs. They really helped us build a more effective WCD. Remember, innovations is made by copying and improving.

6) Work with other teams. Both teams will gain. Right now we are developing a swerve with 1515, and it has helped so much. Really, you can see how much this works, with partnerships like 148 and 217. Also, CD is kind of like this. You can get help from other teams.

[JesseK]

For anyone who can't make it to Karthik's 105-minute "Strategy" presentation in St. Louis on Wednesday, I'll go ahead and give you the first few lines in my notes from the last 2 years' presentations (summarized):

• His name is Karthik and his team wins alot. His teams proactively seeks to help other teams as well.
• When determinining where time and resources are spent, there IS a priority order on every team regardless of whether that priority order is explicitly stated.
• The #1 priority is the thing that MUST work every match to be able to do anything, and that is DRIVE TRAIN.
• The #2 priority is the FIRST thing the game piece touches before it can be scored and that is the game pieces ACQUISITION MECHANISM.
• Robot functions should work 100% and not be some over-constrained half-thought-out almalgamation of metal and motors.
• This implies that if priorities are out of order, then the pickup function may suffer the most due to spatial and weight constraints.

Ergo, if the first thing a team designed on the robot this year was a shooting mechanism then there's a good chance the intake mechanism was a secondary priority. That means there was less brainstorming time and more constraining factors given to that mechanism overall. I know that as Week 1 progressed, this is what wound up happening on my team.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by JesseK

For anyone who can't make it to Karthik's 105-minute "Strategy" presentation in St. Louis on Wednesday, I'll go ahead and give you the first few lines in my notes from the last 2 years' presentations (summarized):

• His name is Karthik and his team wins alot. His teams proactively seeks to help other teams as well.
• When determinining where time and resources are spent, there IS a priority order on every team regardless of whether that priority order is explicitly stated.
• The #1 priority is the thing that MUST work every match to be able to do anything, and that is DRIVE TRAIN.
• The #2 priority is the FIRST thing the game piece touches before it can be scored and that is the game pieces ACQUISITION MECHANISM.
• Robot functions should work 100% and not be some over-constrained half-thought-out almalgamation of metal and motors.
• This implies that if priorities are out of order, then the pickup function may suffer the most due to spatial and weight constraints.

Ergo, if the first thing a team designed on the robot this year was a shooting mechanism then there's a good chance the intake mechanism was a secondary priority. That means there was less brainstorming time and more constraining factors given to that mechanism overall. I know that as Week 1 progressed, this is what wound up happening on my team.

If you look at the original post, all the "missing features" related to game piece acquisition. Actually, that makes so much sense.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Ergo, if the first thing a team designed on the robot this year was a shooting mechanism then there's a good chance the intake mechanism was a secondary priority.

Alas, if only our shooter had worked as well as our drive train and ball acquisition mechanism...

[JamesCH95]

While 95 is not really a power-house team, lately we've been coming up with pretty good mechanical designs I think. I.e. the double roller claw in 2011 and an over-the-bumper collector this year. What we ask ourselves is "what would make it easiest for the driver?" We knew that reorienting the tube for placement, and having the widest possible mechanism to pickup balls, would make the drivers' life easier, so we implemented them. It's the question that we ask ourselves that generally results in a good design I think.

We did not miss the 'stinger' balance assist mechanism idea, but we did undervalue its importance and therefore did not build it

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

The other question is, are these teams powerhouses because they come up with this kind of idea? Or do they come up with this kind of idea because they are powerhouses?

Yes.

[EricH]

How about the implementation of those ideas? Ideas are relatively easy compared to making them a fully-functional reality.

I think probably the best way to come up with ideas like that is prototyping and/or game simulation. Simulating the game tells you that X will be important; the prototypes tell you what highly effective methods you can come up with.

Sometimes, it's just the execution, though. In 2005, the powerhouses tended to go for single-tetra robots, built for "surgery"--they could get in, cap a row in a particularly awkward place for an opponent, and get out to load up and strike again quickly and cleanly. Other robots built single-tetra robots, but they couldn't pull that kind of maneuver cleanly and reliably. (The multi-tetra robots had a much harder time; I actually saw one single-tetra robot clear a stack of 3-4 off the top of a multi-tetra robot just by hitting the tetras.)

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

How do these teams come up with these ideas?

Why do other teams not come up with them?

The other question is, are these teams powerhouses because they come up with this kind of idea? Or do they come up with this kind of idea because they are powerhouses?

Teams come up with these ideas because they jump through hoops backwards to come up with them. A 'powerhouse' team, as they're dubbed, doesn't want an average design. They want an extraordinary design, they want the best design, they want the winning design. They look for key elements of the game, and they design their robot around that. Then, not only do they come up with a design, they crunch the numbers for it. I'm sure you've seen JVN's design calculator. Those great teams, from what I've heard and read, do extensive research and screening into their design, figuring out how to make it better. The result is a robot design they is both unique and effective. The result of THAT, is a robot that dominates the competition. If you look at 2011, roller claws that opened like pincher claws were a great design. They're the product that out-of-the-box thinking. This year, stingers seem to be that unique design.

As to why teams DON'T come up with those designs, there are a lot of reasons for this. Maybe they don't have the resources to build a great design they come up with. That always plays a factor. Maybe they misread the game; if you thought making hoops was all you'd need to do to win matches, and disregarded the bridge mostly, save for a simple manipulator, you'd find yourself on the short end of the stick. Or maybe they just don't have an extensive design process. They come up with a design that works well, but they don't refine it or verify that it is indeed the best design. Those are just a few reasons that come to mind.

As to your third question, I think it may work both ways. A team becomes a powerhouse by thinking of out-of-the-box designs that win. They then continue to come up with those designs because they have the experience of a process that gave them a good design. It can take years of refinement to get the design process down. But one you've got it, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to lose. So long as things are documented well enough.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

I also haven't people mention communication.

I feel like the powerhouses talk to each other.

Well, if you want to know how 217 became a powerhouse, just pin down Paul Copioli and ask him about it. Getting him to *stop* talking about how they've come as far as they have is harder than getting him to start -- that is to say, he's more than willing to share.

What I've gotten out of my conversations with him is that the secret is that there is no secret: hard work and dedication on all fronts, with an honest eye to what needs improvement (be it fundraising or design capability or student recruitment or sponsor involvement or what-have-you).

[Koko Ed]

The thing that has always stood out for me about the Elites is not just the things they build (plenty of non Elites used roller claws and were not nearly as effective last year) but how efficiently they use their time on the field of play. 2 minutes is a very short time and one of the most frustrating things I notice is when a team spends one minute of time doing something as trivial as acquiring a single game piece (I actually saw a team spend one whole minute trying to do just that last year trying to grab a tube from a human player during a match. I can understand doing something like that during a practice match but during a qualification match I would have benched the whole drives team for that) It's like everything is on a schedule and they make sure they are in position to meet that schedule every time.
The relentless pursuit of perfection does not simply come from designing "Killer Apps" as Ellery Wong on my team would call them but then too hone and perfect the proper use of them (if you gave the use of any of the Elites robots to any old team in FIRST it would be a decent robot than a dominant one because they wouldn't know how to properly use it to its fullest potential. They would not use the best strategies. They would not know how to get the most out of their alliance partners. They would not keep their plans on time because second tier teams just do not understand those things and it shows through every aspect of their team compared to an Elite. Like Dean says it's not just about the robot. 67 is a dominant team not just because they build terrific robots with Killer Apps. Not just because they have an adult coach, not just because they have great scouting and strategies, not just because they have great sponsors or school support or supportive parents or dedicated students. It's because they pursue and expect success in what they do.
When I look and see the (far too many) teams who are the antitheses of that the first thing that always sticks out to me is the severe lack of urgency to anything they do. The chronic apathy they bring to the table. Never mind if they win or lose it's disturbing how readily they accept missing matches or doing embarrassingly incompetent thing on the field as if it was the whole point of coming out there in the first place.
The Mids see what the Elites are doing and do some of it well but to make it to the Elite level have to take an honest account of themselves and shore up whatever is lacking and many Mids have grown to become Elite over the years because of this.
Too many teams get bent out of shape by the presence of Elites because they are perceived as "pushy and mean". Type A's always come off as that but they have a pretty good idea what is needed to be done to win the match and are just trying to get the other teams on board with what to do. It's natural to resist people telling us what to do. We're independent creatures by nature it's perceived as weak to allow others to tell us what to do but if I have a large group of killers trying to break into my house to slaughter me and my family and Chuck Norris shows up at the back door I aint telling the guy "I got this." I might want to listen to the opinion of the team with all the blue banners on the matter.

[Kevin Ray]

I agree with much of what has been said here especially Koko Ed's thought that complacency is also at fault. I believe that many teams approach the game wrong if they, in fact, really want to win. They view it as "How can we do the task well, quickly and within our manufacturing means." The elites look at how to accomplish the task the BEST way (that means strategically). They MAKE their design work. They worry about the actual design process last--and rightly so. They know that you have to score, and quickly, to win. There have been phenomenally manufactured robots who have been horrible on the field because the designers were thinking more about manufacturing than strategy. Conversely, there are numerous instances where middle or lower level bots have made it to divisional finals because they had the right strategy and made a robust bot albeit not a manufacturing marvel.
I have thought about this thread for the last two years and think that the elites have figured it out early--game theory and design strategy trumps all else. Now, what makes them elites is that they are able to combine that with deep pockets and better manufacturing processes (iterations, prototypes, quick cnc turn around, practice bots etc.) Many teams have one or the other and then it becomes a hit or miss getting to the finals--you need both to consistently visit Einstein.

[TheMadCADer]

The real advantage I see in the over-bumper intake this year is not just the large pickup zone, but also the ability to easily pick up balls next to the edge of the field. With a through-bumper intake your bumpers prevent you from getting sufficiently close to the ball. The ball is practically just the right size for this, and I do not think that is a coincidence.

Also, when a team has little manufacturing capability at their disposal you will often see ideas shot down because they don't know how they could build it, so it must be impossible. My policy is that every idea is valid for the first two weeks (provided it isn't blatantly illegal or anything, of course). You'd be surprised the things I've seen made with drills and saws alone.

During the first few days after kickoff there is no discussion of actual, physical designs. Instead, the team talks strategy, what we need to do, and how to play the game. Plus, a field is under construction right away.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by Kevin Ray

There have been phenomenally manufactured robots who have been horrible on the field because the designers were thinking more about manufacturing than strategy. Conversely, there are numerous instances where middle or lower level bots have made it to divisional finals because they had the right strategy and made a robust bot albeit not a manufacturing marvel.

I also echo everything Don Rotolo said, which I would summarize as "build a machine that plays the game and is easy to operate, and show up ready to play", which is easier said than done.

I don't think there is one single feature that separates the best from the rest (on the field). "Elite" or "powerhouse" teams, or whatever you call them, do a good job at everything (concept, prototyping, fabrication, maintenance, resources, practice, tactics, strategy, scouting, etc.). They are always looking for ways to improve as the season goes on, and they are able to do this year after year.

In general, I think that what a team does the first week or so after kickoff is most important. That's when you set the course for what to build and how to play. After that is mostly how well you accomplish what you set out to do, and how well you can correct your shortcomings from week one of build. It would interesting to record all of your discussions when you were speculating about what the game will look like, and then play them back later. It would be much easier to design a robot if you could foresee how the game actually played out, but nobody has that luxury. If you could improve your speculation and imagination skills, you would have a better chance of building the right machine for the game, and not waste limited resources building dead-end features that aren't useful.