|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Are you doing the low bar? If so, what will you do with it? | |||
| No low bar |
|
60 | 12.85% |
| Yes low bar, capable of B/D defenses with no shooter |
|
19 | 4.07% |
| Yes low bar, capable of B/D defenses with a shooter |
|
92 | 19.70% |
| Yes low bar, breach capable with no shooter |
|
56 | 11.99% |
| Yes low bar, breach capable with a shooter |
|
227 | 48.61% |
| Yes low bar, no B/D defenses with a shooter |
|
6 | 1.28% |
| Other |
|
7 | 1.50% |
| Voters: 467. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
We're building as a sapper (breaching specialist) first and foremost. But, as this has limited scoring possibilities (especially if there is another sapper on the alliance), we also have a boulder pickup and launch at high goal (and can reverse the pickup for a low goal attempt), though our speed is rather slow and we have only made two high goal shots so far - but they were consecutive and did not touch the tower on the way in.
We're switching from surgical tubing to springs (springs arrived via UPS today) to improve range/height consistency from shot to shot. We are currently light enough that we may work on a scaling mechanism or a deployable defensive wall after bagging. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
50% checking in for "Yes low bar, breach capable with a shooter"...
![]() |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
i mean, the poll doesn't state they do it all effectively...
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
Quote:
![]() |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
I originally thought that Karthik's reasoning for being terrified was simply because there are teams that would give up "playing" the game for going under the low bar. What I mean by this is teams that would give up shooting high, scoring the boulder or climbing the castle for going under the low bar, being that it is a easy objective. But this poll seems to reflect that teams are going to attempt to do it all. Personally I think this perspective is beneficial to the FIRST community, making competition more competitive, and it allows the students to overcome the large problem of engineering a robot that can do it all. Disclaimer, if fifty percent of robots will be able to travel under the low bar then the low bar will be a highly contested team strategy. I think due to the format of the game most teams will not be able to travel through the defenses as fast as they can travel under the low bar. The best teams in the world will be able to do all the defenses as fast as they can traverse the low bar. Currently I believe the reasoning for Karthik being terrified is due to strategy, we need to ask ourselves, did Simbotics or OP Robotics build a robot around a strategy, such as a Low Bar cycle shooter (Only traveling through the Low Bar). While I think this specific strategy example is starkly unlikely for either Simbotics or OP Robotics use, I do think that Karthik is scared due to a mistake (shocking to think this is possible of either team). Stronghold will be exciting to watch.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
I can tell you what's really tough.
Wiring your robot with all of your control system parts in a tiny package footprint for trying to achieve a low bar passage, lift and traversing the barriers. Here's what nobody is talking about. What would an elite team really do? My guess is that they focus on a superior articulating frame that traverses the defenses effortlessly, keeping a relatively high robot, doing all of the above with excellence. Why? Because they can easily choose a 2nd and/or 3rd partner that focuses solely on the low bar and the fact that there will be lots of them. The biggest hint was on the poll that asked if teams were affected by the change in dimensions to one of the barriers. Only the elite chose that they were screwed. ![]() |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
Quote:
But for the rest, it depends just how effective they traverse those barriers. And we will see a lot struggle with it... |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
This is the problem that I am currently solving for my team. Three clear 'shelves' so we can see everything but still fit it in a small 7" by 10" by 6" high space.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Low Bar Poll, part 2
Quote:
As we wire, we find open spaces to put items and have to create a "shelve" to mount onto with standoffs and spacers. This takes time to custom make on the spot in order to wire the next set of item(s). 27 hours and counting......back at it today. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
We have used the entire inside of the robot and it's still very crowded. Definitely not a wiring job I'm very proud of looks wise but, we labeled the crap out of it and everything is connected with Power poles so troubleshooting should not be too much of an issue.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|