[MCC] Minimum Competitive Concept 2012

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

In my mind, 4334 is the epitome of the minimum competitive concept.

Having watched them perform at the IRI, I tend to agree. While their concept is not particular good at seeding high, they picked a very valuable attribute to excel at and thus nearly garuanteed being picked.

[marccenter]

Simplicity & Golden Rules from Simbotics 1114 Presentation
Golden Rule #1: Always build within your team’s limits. Evaluate your abilities and resources honestly and realistically .Limits are defined by manpower, budget, experience . Avoid building unnecessarily complex functions
Golden Rule #2: If a team has 30 units of robot and functions have maximum of 10 units, better to have 3 functions at 10/10 instead of 5 at 6/10
Please list your assumptions, strategy to seed high, estimate of a winning score, and what robot design elements would achieve this score
Background Information for Sophomore FRC Team 3548 - Team consists of 1 sophomore coach, one electrical engineer with Labview programming and robotics experience on teams 47 (2 years) and team 1 (2 years) and 8 students, only 4 of which will be involved in the robot build . High School coach has access to woodshop but no metal cutting tools (lathe or mill) on site. Engineer has new access to water jet at work location 30 miles from office location due to GM sponsorship.
Assumptions: 1) Minimal parental involvement, 2) no time to prototype shooter concepts, 3) Shooter designs will have to access water jet limitations (2 dimensional) and be designed and mostly built by engineer and Andy Mark parts , 4) Robot build will consume all time available, 5) drive team practice before first event less than one hour, 6) Budget limits encourage strong use of KOP components, 7) Additional funds estimated to be $1000 from school, 8) Team resources prevent building of single wheel, hooded ball shooter design.

Midpack robot design goals: 1) Robot drivetrain must never fail – no one wants to pick a sophomore team whose robot fails on the field!, 2) Shoot 2 balls during autonomous and 6 during hybrid period, 3) Must be able to lower bridge in order to score cooperation points, 4) Be able to shoot balls from opponents side into team side to assist in team point scoring, 5) Will not typically go over middle barrier, 6) Part of elimination field of 24 robots in both Michigan District events, 7) Will not attend Michigan State Competition due to budgetary constraints but choose instead to go to third Michigan District event ($500), 8) Take maximum advantage of other FRC team's learnings in first two weeks to help with design direction and order and read FRC book on robot design that featured shooting mechanism's from previous FRC competition (2006?).

Robot Design Elements: 1) 6WD chassis. Read Simbotics presentation on “gold standard”. Will use 6 inch KOP wheels. First time team using 6WD configuration. Will use robot long design configuration for ease of building for students and because of limited number of balls being picked up.
2) Ball collector – used Chief Delphi and Youtube to help design. Team 245, Roch Adams, recommended using ¼ id tubing with barb inserts from McMaster-Carr for belt design. Will use 550 motors with Bane Bot transmissions (new for us). Team 1 recommendation of 64:1 transmission ration accepted. Read instructions for breaking in transmission on Chief Delphi. Stretch factor of 5% on Chief Delphi initially used and found to be too tight. Motors smoked. Reduced friction in rollers. Reduced friction in system. Belt tension reduced to make system operational (thanks Paul C. - Thunderchickens).
3) Bridge Arm – Chief Delphi thread indicated that 20 lbs at given distance required. KOP PG-71 gearmotor sufficient with 3:1 ratio. Chain driven system used with purchased Andy Mark Hubs and sprockets. Only Bridge Arm testing was to lift robot in shop – no measurements made. Bridge arm very successful in Waterford District event.
4) Ball Shooter Design – using information gathered from Chief Delphi, design 4 wheel, dual axle, 6 inch past KOP wheel, direct driven by incorporating Andy Mark SimCIM product on both drive axles. Control backspin by varying motor speed ratio (Chief Delphi). Gravity feed ball between wheels via ramp. Use water jet capability to fashion two end plates that will marry the shooter system.

Michigan District Results. Waterford -There is no measurement scale at school so we arrived and weighed in at 125 lbs (first time over weight due to all robot features) . FRC Waterford Captains Team instrumental in helping us lose 5 lbs in about 2 hours . Missed first match due software issues. Ball collector mechanism design still under development. Very successful in lowering bridge and gaining co-opertition points. Ended event at 8th alliance position. Never dreamed we would be in a position to select other teams . Consulted with Team 1 to arrive at pick list. Team alliance not strong – eliminated quickly from afternoon fun.
Michigan District Results. Troy – This is the toughest Michigan District Event. For some team’s it is their third or fourth event having gone outside of Michigan to compete in the Midwest events. Now our robot could shoot and score consistently (50%) in both hybrid and operator controlled. Robot is fully operational. It’s fun not to have to be building your robot but enjoying the venue. End up being ranked around 24 but not selected for the afternoon. Next year let’s skip Troy and go to Livonia where the competition is reported to be easier!

So, Ike, how did you have us ranked? Were we a Midpack robot or a MCC? BTW, thanks for starting the thread. It gave me a chance to rethink about what happened this season.

Some lessons learned:
1) Need to recruit some varsity athletes for the team (see Simbotics presentation)
2) Need more adult support.
3) Chief Delphi support from FRC teams is invaluable for Mid-pack competitive robotics team.
4) FRC teams are willing to share and help your team build a competitive robot!.
5) Familiarize yourself with the Andy Mark website! Order parts early if possible to beat the rush (FP-0673 motors).

[marccenter]

Here's a snapshot of our ball shooter design prior to robot installation

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=102704

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by mikemat

IMO, The design of the MCC should focus more on being a viable second or even first round pick than seeding high. I think seeding high relies on too many variables. Therefore, i think it should have:
A wide frame to make yourself a more favorable second pick. I noticed that there was a huge demand for wide bots as second picks at the events I attended.
A one point dump auto because 8 pts per match guaranteed looks good and helps seeding.
A bridge manipulator on the back because the bots with coop autons were in even higher demand than the wide bots. Even if the auto was 'Feed and drive back to bridge', you would almost be insured a slot playing Saturday afternoon.

I think this design would be a very valuable second (or even first) pick at most events.
If possible, I would add:
Collector to feed the shooters on your alliance
Bump crossing to get to the side you will be defending faster
2 point dump capibilities because 12 pts per match is better than 8.
Brakes for easier balancing and 1 cp almost guaranteed
In that order.

Strategy would be to get your auto points however possible, play defense either at the fender or the spot where the inbounder is bouncing balls across the bump, and then head to the bridge (preferably coop).

I agree with much of this. If I was going for the most attractive 2nd pick, I'd simplify a bit. Brakes are unnecessary since you aren't trying to seed well. Autonomous shooting and dumping are unnecessary since you aren't trying to seed well. Those functions are unnecessary for success in eliminations as a defender / gatherer robot / balancing robot. In fact, it is to your disadvantage to seed too high and become an alliance captain if you are trying to be the ideal second pick. Instead of shooting ability, simply make sure the gatherer can reverse and feed two balls to a shooting robot during Hybrid.

As has been stated, 4334 was smart enough to pull this off, and the proof is in the pudding. Kudos to that team for a really smart strategy for the year.

I think it's fascinating to try to figure out how to be the elusive 2nd pick of the #1 or #2 alliance. It's tricky and requires some luck, but I think this was a better year to try it than most.

[mikemat]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I agree with much of this. If I was going for the most attractive 2nd pick, I'd simplify a bit. Brakes are unnecessary since you aren't trying to seed well. Autonomous shooting and dumping are unnecessary since you aren't trying to seed well. Those functions are unnecessary for success in eliminations as a defender / gatherer robot / balancing robot. In fact, it is to your disadvantage to seed too high and become an alliance captain if you are trying to be the ideal second pick. Instead of shooting ability, simply make sure the gatherer can reverse and feed two balls to a shooting robot during Hybrid.

I agree that the brakes are not strictly necessarily, that's why they were the last item on the 'if possible' list. My reasoning for adding them at all was i felt that they were a low cost item that could easily help with defense as well as balancing. I saw autonomous as necessary because many teams didn't (or couldn't) have a feedable autonomous, so without an auto, your alliance would be left with a max of 6 pts. out of your 2 auto balls, as apposed to the 8 pts (or worse, they would end up on the bridge). you could get from you scoring them in auto. I think that the primary purpose of the bot is to play in elims, and seeding higher can only increase your chances of doing that.

[efoote868]

From looking at this years game, I think team 16 nailed the minimum competitive concept. What they executed in the finals of Galileo didn't require all the complexities their robot had, but the strategy was perfect as a 2nd pick.

Their robot:
-Consistently made both autonomous shots for 12 points
-Was much quicker than 80% or more of the rest of the robots on the field
-Could grab balls off the ground like nobody's business, and quickly release them.
-was small, and could get across the field and up the bridge.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by efoote868

From looking at this years game, I think team 16 nailed the minimum competitive concept. What they executed in the finals of Galileo didn't require all the complexities their robot had, but the strategy was perfect as a 2nd pick.

Their robot:
-Consistently made both autonomous shots for 12 points
-Was much quicker than 80% or more of the rest of the robots on the field
-Could grab balls off the ground like nobody's business, and quickly release them.
-was small, and could get across the field and up the bridge.

While I agree that 16 was a great robot they were the complete opposite of minimum. From their swerve drive, catapult, and full width pickup it was an extremely effective yet complex robot. Minimum competitive robots are ones that are extremely basic/simple and any team with limited resources, tools, and budget can produce in the 6 weeks.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

While I agree that 16 was a great robot they were the complete opposite of minimum. From their swerve drive, catapult, and full width pickup it was an extremely effective yet complex robot. Minimum competitive robots are ones that are extremely basic/simple and any team with limited resources, tools, and budget can produce in the 6 weeks.

I posted about their strategy, not their implementation.

A minimum competitive robot could do the exact same things that team did, without all the complexity.

Swap swerve drive with some AM mecanum and you've reduced the complexity to something any team could do, while still maintaining mobility.
Even skid steering would suffice, as long as the driver has enough practice with the robot and it's geared appropriately.

Remove their catapult feeding mechanism, replace their one reloadable catapult with two non-reloadable. I'm fairly certain a team with limited resources could tune two catapults to be very consistant. The point here is that you need to make your two shots in autonomous, and if you don't aim high you won't get picked.

A full width feeding mechanism shouldn't be too difficult to implement, it doesn't even have to be that. It has to be quick, and able to reverse to spit balls out on the other side of the field. A bonus implementation is if it can be extended outside the frame perimeter.

As far as what goes into that robot, four jags, three/four spikes (two for the catapults, one for the feeder, and possible one for a compressor), an extra controller for a feeder that needs to extend outside the frame perimeter (maybe another spike?).
Four AM mecanum wheels, four gearboxes. Two catapults, a feeder, maybe a compressor. Slap it all on a kitbot frame that isn't full sized, and you've got a minimum competive robot.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Remove their catapult feeding mechanism, replace their one reloadable catapult with two non-reloadable. I'm fairly certain a team with limited resources could tune two catapults to be very consistant. The point here is that you need to make your two shots in autonomous, and if you don't aim high you won't get picked.

This is not true. If a team hits two low baskets 100% of the time they are more valuable than my robot that always hits one ball in the top and occasionally the second. Several teams including 2168 decided to aim for the middle hoop in hybrid because their accuracy in the middle hoop was much greater than the top hoop and only worth 2 less points. Another strategy for aiming low is that you don't interfere with your partner. At GSR in elims we were on an alliance with two other robots who all claimed to have gone 2 for 2 in the past several matches. We all setup for the start of our match and only 12 points were scored for our alliance because our shots hit each other. A nice feature of going low is that you are out of the way of everyone else. 16 had a great catapult but it was never 100% accurate. I think a lot of people including myself have underestimated exactly how hard it is to reach the top basket. If you are building a minimum competitive robot that just shoots in autonomous you are better off aiming low with high accuracy. I would always pick the consistent hybrid robot that isn't in my way.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by mikemat

I agree that the brakes are not strictly necessarily, that's why they were the last item on the 'if possible' list. My reasoning for adding them at all was i felt that they were a low cost item that could easily help with defense as well as balancing. I saw autonomous as necessary because many teams didn't (or couldn't) have a feedable autonomous, so without an auto, your alliance would be left with a max of 6 pts. out of your 2 auto balls, as apposed to the 8 pts (or worse, they would end up on the bridge). you could get from you scoring them in auto. I think that the primary purpose of the bot is to play in elims, and seeding higher can only increase your chances of doing that.

I basically agree. I focused my first suggestion purely on seeding high while ignoring factors that would help a team get picked. In my response to you, I focused on getting picked and ignored seeding. In both cases I was trying to suggest the minimum for a particular goal. In a real season it certainly makes sense to consider both. This season was tricky since the eliminations weren't quite the same game as qualifiers, so teams had to decide what to focus on.

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Wide/square orientation 6WD or 8WD would be even better. Done correctly, it would still be able to cross the barrier without any issues.

All else considered equal, having a wide robot was the easiest way to move up pick lists in 2012.

Agreed.

The concept I described was long because it's less tippy, which should increase balancing success rate and improve seeding. I was going for seeding high at the expense of being a more attractive pick. Long is probably unnecessary in that concept since it doesn't need to be tall.

[AlDee]

[quote=mikemat;1171048]If possible, I would add:
Collector to feed the shooters on your alliance
Bump crossing to get to the side you will be defending faster
2 point dump capibilities because 12 pts per match is better than 8.
Brakes for easier balancing and 1 cp almost guaranteed
In that order.

What concept did you use for Brakes?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Barrier traversal
Use the simplest drive that can get over the barrier. I’m thinking long 8WD using 8” wheels and angled skids on the front end.
This capability significantly improves the odds of bridge success. It provides Plan B in case balls get stuck under bridges or a robot tips on one side of a bridge. It also allows you to pop over the barrier and help the opponent onto the Co-op bridge if their bridge manipulator is failing to get the job done. Also, it allows the robot to cross to the other side to sit underneath a bridge to stabilize it while a robot or two balances to speed up the process.

I think the drive that we built this year was very simple and could climb the barrier pretty easily. It uses mostly stock kit parts with the addition of some 1/8" angle aluminum. It uses 36 teeth sprockets on the wheels to slow it down a bit from the standard KoP configuration.



This drive worked really well for us.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Barrier traversal
Use the simplest drive that can get over the barrier. I’m thinking long 8WD using 8” wheels and angled skids on the front end.
This capability significantly improves the odds of bridge success. It provides Plan B in case balls get stuck under bridges or a robot tips on one side of a bridge. It also allows you to pop over the barrier and help the opponent onto the Co-op bridge if their bridge manipulator is failing to get the job done. Also, it allows the robot to cross to the other side to sit underneath a bridge to stabilize it while a robot or two balances to speed up the process.

Wide/square orientation 6WD or 8WD would be even better. Done correctly, it would still be able to cross the barrier without any issues.

All else considered equal, having a wide robot was the easiest way to move up pick lists in 2012.

[FrankJ]

So for minimums here. They can be adapted to work with any game

First read & understand the rules. Understand what your robot can do to play the game. Make sure your drive team understands the game, can communicate with & work with its alliance partners. This is one thing that can be done even with minimum physical resources.

Second make a robot that can move reliably. It needs to be able to cross the bump or pull down the bridge & cross it. If it moves reliably it can be the second robot on a balance. along with understanding the rules, it can play defense.

Third it needs to be able to score something in hybrid. Points lost there it can never get back.

Do these three & you have a good chance of a second pick. If your are an alliance captain then you are already doing more the minimum