Percentage of EFFECTIVE Limbo Robots

[Joe Johnson]

According to the poll Low Bar 90% of teams are planning on being able to go under the low bar.

I believe that 90% of teams are going to TRY to go under the low bar, I just don't think that there will be that many that are effective at it. By which I mean that their robot can not only go under the low bar but can do something else that adds significant value to their alliance (e.g. cross many/most other defenses, score boulders into the high goal, scale the tower, block opponent shots/play defense effectively, ...).

So... What percentage of teams do YOU thing will be effective Limbo Robots?

For the purposes of this survey, let's not count weeks 0-3 of the season. Answer based on Week 4 and beyond.

[Joe G.]

Around 20%. Of the remaining 80%, about half will go under the bar, but would have been better off otherwise.

[VacioArconte]

Keep in mind that Chief Delphi polls disproportionately represent more experienced FRC teams. That 90% probably will not hold true once competitions start up.

That being said, I expect 100% of low bar bots to be able to either shoot low or cross many defenses.

I'd guess 40% of low bar bots will have mechanisms that shoot high, and 50% of those to work fairly well.

I would expect 20% of low bar bots to have hanging mechanisms, and 50% of those to work well.

[Boltman]

Defining : EFFECTIVE

Low goal scoring is not considered such?

We assume most low bots can assist or cross at least two defenses (Low and open from back doors) so one more qualifies?

Think the poll to be accurate needs to be defined better.

For instance...A low bot that is super fast intakes like no other and can score eight low goals seems "effective" to me.

[New Lightning]

I agree that the term effective should be defined a little bit better. Are you referring to robots that can not only go under low bar and do something meaningful with a boulder, are you talking about robots who can get under the low bar but the only other thing that their good at is getting over some of the obstacles what is your criteria?

[GeeTwo]

Everybody seems to have low bar as a pretty firm requirement, and for good reason. Few teams making low goal scorers will have a problem getting under the low bar (unless they completely miss the geometry of the ramp and design 16" high and do not test). Most teams capable of scoring high consistently will engineer their way through it. I think that by week 4 more than 60% of teams will be able to traverse the low bar at least as efficiently as any other defense, so I checked 60-79%.

[Peyton Yeung]

I'm interested to see what a robot does if it can't cross a defense or go under the low bar.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

I'm interested to see what a robot does if it can't cross a defense or go under the low bar.

Wait for a partner to open the Group C Defense, or focus on defense in its own courtyard (or at one other point...). Could also play shuttle, dropping off boulders for partners in the Neutral Zone, but that's a risky business.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

I'm interested to see what a robot does if it can't cross a defense or go under the low bar.

If I had that bot, I would want to start in the spy position. That way, I could get 5 points for challenging, have access to boulders and goals, and be able to open drawbridges and sally ports.

[matthewdenny]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

I'm interested to see what a robot does if it can't cross a defense or go under the low bar.

Being a really good rebounder/shooter that can hang would seem to be an effective robot in many matches. Especially with the small upper goal I expect a lot of missed shots in qualifying matches. I think their value would decrease as Saturday goes on however.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by VacioArconte

Keep in mind that Chief Delphi polls disproportionately represent more experienced FRC teams. That 90% probably will not hold true once competitions start up.

That being said, I expect 100% of low bar bots to be able to either shoot low or cross many defenses.

I don't know about 100%, because teams that just build a kitbot (with all the foibles that usually follow) are likely to fall into this category. Call it 70-80?

[Andrew Schreiber]

0-19%... why? Because that's about the percentage of robots that seem to reliably do the game challenge anyway.

How many will continue to tell you they do it and are 110% accurate into the high goal? If the number of teams in 2014 who told me they always scored a ball in auto is any indicator it'll be something like the remaining 81%. And they'll all scream about me being "un GP" when I point out data to the contrary of their delusions.


Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man already.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

0-19%... why? Because that's about the percentage of robots that seem to reliably do the game challenge anyway.

How many will continue to tell you they do it and are 110% accurate into the high goal? If the number of teams in 2014 who told me they always scored a ball in auto is any indicator it'll be something like the remaining 81%. And they'll all scream about me being "un GP" when I point out data to the contrary of their delusions.


Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man already.

Nope, you're right. It's 2014 all over again

[New Lightning]

I tend to agree teams say they'll be able to go under the low bar and maybe the can in teleop under the right conditions and little pressure. But come competition time are they going to be able to do something once in the courtyard.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man already.

Welcome to the club.