Playing well with others while scaling the tower

[ToddF]

I haven't seen this issue raised by anyone else, though I admit I haven't been monitoring CD this year as closely as I have in the past. It seems like teams are leaving their climbing mechanisms for development later in the season, and may not have noticed an issue which may affect your drive drain design.

I wanted to point out something important about geometric constraints when scaling the tower. If your robot exceeds 24 inches wide, including the bumpers, and you plan to scale with your bumpers sliding up the tower, there are a couple unpleasant consequences.
1) If you scale adjacent to the wall, the wall will push you off center. This means you might only be able to scale from the center face of the tower.
2) If you scale from the center face of the tower, and you overhang to the sides, you may interfere with adjacent robots. If they get there first, you may be blocked from scaling. If you get there first, and you only scale to the minimum height, you may block your alliance members from scaling.

Possible solutions:
1) Have a very narrow robot.
2) If your robot is wide, scale first, and raise yourself 5" MINIMUM higher than necessary, to allow your neighbor to scale next to you.
3) Plan to be the only robot on your alliance to scale. This will limit your chances to be on a winning alliance.
4) Chamfer the side of your robot that contacts the tower such that you play nice with others. (see attached figure)
5) Use some other robot/scaling geometry that doesn't have this issue.

I'm publicizing this issue because we want to be on alliances with multiple climbing robots, and putting it out there makes it more likely this will happen.

[Mike Schreiber]

This would have been a great PSA in week one. Frames are likely done by now, we'll see how this plays out.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

This would have been a great PSA in week one. Frames are likely done by now, we'll see how this plays out.

+1, but climbing heights can still likely be adjusted.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

This would have been a great PSA in week one.

Don't I know it. I love discovering these little traps the game design committee has laid for us when it's too late for most teams to do anything about it.

Raising yourself higher is a pretty viable option, though. As is pushing yourself away from the wall (after hooking in) so your bumpers stay on your side of the divider.

[wendells]

Todd.......you deserve a MEDAL......

[JohnFogarty]

This discussion has been brought up similarly at least twice.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/42647

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/42667

Still it's important to make sure everyone has considered it. I'm 100% sure any team could climb next to my team thanks to some design choices we made very early on.

[bearbot]

We are currently work on building our climber and brought this at a meeting the other night. We are planning for two different heights when we scale. Left and Right side when scaling will be right above the line we have to cross. If we go center will make sure where first to scale and go higher than we would on the left or right side. This is what our plan is as of now but it could always change.

[EricLeifermann]

The robot that can scale the highest on your alliance scales 1st and in the middle location. Then the 2 robots on the sides can scale anytime after. No issue.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by JohnFogarty

This discussion has been brought up similarly at least twice.

Yep. I definitely should have been monitoring CD more closely.

[laplacier]

I think the key will be for the quickest scaler to be in the center, regardless of chassis size. The sooner the middle is out of the way the faster the rest can start their climb and there will be more than enough room on the left and right for their chassis (no middle robot to contact!)

[philso]

Originally Posted by laplacier

I think the key will be for the quickest scaler to be in the center, regardless of chassis size. The sooner the middle is out of the way the faster the rest can start their climb and there will be more than enough room on the left and right for their chassis (no middle robot to contact!)

I recall the team member doing the motor calculations for the scaling winch saying he used a time of 15 seconds. It occurred to me the other day that a faster time so you can get out of your alliance mates way would be an advantage.

[Bob Steele]

I think it would be prudent for teams to really consider this.
I know our team has chosen to hang very high so that other teams can get underneath us if necessary. We have also added extra power to our climbing mechanism in order to lift in just 2-3 seconds so we can get up higher and faster to allow other robots to climb underneath us.

We were lucky enough to identify this Key Performance Parameter early in the design process.

We hope to design so that our alliance can be successful

We will also be able to hang at a lower height if necessary to help the group hang.

Many teams seem to look at hanging as only a difference of 10 from sitting. I think the further we progress in the season, three hangers will be necessary.
From an alliance viewpoint... it is a 30 point swing.

good luck and see you on the field and at the tower!!

[Jared Russell]

How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?

That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).

I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.

[glennword]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?

That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).

I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.

In 2010, there weren't nearly as many teams as we have now, there were not nearly as many gearbox/motor/mechanism COTS options available, and there were not as many web based/otherwise easily accessible design and knowledge resources. FIRST is growing, and with it the average quality of teams. That's the nature, and arguably the goal, of any competition; improvement.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

How often did 3 robots on an alliance all hang in 2010?

That was a much simpler game (fewer things to do/less tradeoffs to make) and hanging/suspending was the single most valuable robot action, points wise. The rules on robot expansion were more lenient (84" diameter cylinder during the endgame), there were 4 sides/corners for teams to find space, and there were multiple options for hanging (vertical or horizontal bars).

I would love to see all 3 robots scale the tower regularly, but I think it will fall into the "there's a Chief Delphi post every time it happens" category of rarity.

All of these points are legit. This year will be more like 2013, the year that no one climbed above the first rung.