|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#106
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well when i saw what 68 does i was amazed. It's a well thought out bot that's more than a step ahead of everyone else in their planning, construction, and strategy. Personally i have no problem with going up against a robot as such. but i have a feeling that when a robot (130lbs) travelling at 9 - 15 fps makes a bump against this robot strategy goes out the window.
I'd be sure you guys have backup wings for this thing. If you didn't see a robot like this coming then don't whine about how it throws off your strategy. For Innovation and Rec..... Good job 68! |
|
#107
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Thank You
Quote:
|
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey, I just want to make sure everyone knows that the purpose of showing you our robot was not to make people mad at us for "weasling" through the rules. We only wanted to show you because we are very proud of our robot, as everyone else is proud of their own. As stated several times before, we as an entire team- both students and engineers- discussed the rules and our design to exhaustion, making sure it was legal. For clarification, because there are still many people who do not fully understand why it does not break any rules or use any loopholes:
1. It does not come into contact with the midfield bar UNLESS another robot pushes against us. We are planning on this happening, and will be prepared to fix any damage resulting from it. 2. It does not touch the plexiglass. 3. There is nylon on the bottom of all the legs, so no hard surfaces touch the carpet- we won't cause field damage and will not be DQ'd for it. 4. It is NOT DESIGNED TO STOP BOTS! It is designed to limit the flow of bins from one side to the other, yes, we will use it to slow traffic from one side to another of bots, but our arms work independently. 5. It is NOT DESIGNED to keep us from spinning on the HDPE. 6. It is beatable, and we will be prepared to fix all damage- we will have enough extra parts to get through each competition. Once again, we thank everyone for their input- it does help us in checking our work. However, blatant stabs at our team's character and behavior- classifying us into "non-gracious professionals" as well as "weasels" is not appreciated and NOT in the spirit of FIRST. FIRST is about helping each other GRACIOUSLY, and competing GRACIOUSLY, not putting others down for a design you disagree with. So in the future, it would be appreciated if those who do not wish to help us with your comments specifically on the robot and only wish to insult would keep those comments to yourselves. Thanks again to all of you who have contributed thoughtful discussion of our design. Alexis |
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#110
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
When it comes to interpretation of rules, sometimes first does not make enough clarification on things, last year we felt the full brunt of " mis interpretation of the rules "
We had a solid aluminum tether ( or mini bot we called it ) that spanned 28 feet at any time someone could try to run over it for days and not get tangled in it.. and it was strong enough so when we ran over it with a pick up truck it didn't break, but something like that took up about 45 lbs on our bot in which we coulda used something better in a drivetrain , but some of these other teams use basically wires running with a motor and a wheel and ways like 4 lbs for the whole thing but could get entangled easily. We felt a general injustice about the whole ordeal because people started adding these little mouse bots and tape measures and getting same points for something really cheezy that we felt was against the rules.. but it comes to general mininterpretation of the rules, It even happens within the groups of judges and refs, some refs will enforce a rule more than another ( Ie damaging last years carpet ) it got trashed yet not many teams in my division ever got disqualified for it, just issued " warnings after the match " Its almost like someone forget to send out the memo, clarification of rules has been a big problem in first for a little while now, Every team has the chance to be jipped because they designed for something exactly the way the rule is written and another team is gonna be better off because they bent the rules a little, its all up to refs interpretation Now concerning team 68 , I don't feel that they violate any rules, also, if they get rammed and they touch the barrier, they will not get disqualified because they did not put themselves into that position the refs will realize that, neither will the refs disqualify the other bot for ramming them, because they said this will be a violent game prepare your robot for such, I think team 68 did an amazing job this year as always, and will be a tough competitor I think they have a few weakeness that can be exploited by a few bots with certain types of arms and lifting devieces, what I havn't read yet is anybody mentioning holding their arm down, if you can't push their bot out of the way and get 25 points, why not hold the arm down to the floor and make it so they can't get it either just a thought, you have a great bot looks very powerful hopefully we'll see you at nationals |
|
#111
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Stupid marketing
to team 68: another year, another great bot from Truck Town. This is a design that many teams would love to have as a partner for their robot.
As for blocking a robot from "limboing" with an arm or with a robot body, I don't see the difference. I don't see the illegality of this... but then again, it is not up to me or any of us... it will be up to the referees. Now... on another note... some people are being prett silly and possibly stupid in this thread and in others. Many teams have posted pictures of their robots on-line, and there are a number of people who quickly criticize something about the robot... or they say "we can beat that design". My bet is that these same people will be saying "why didn't we get picked?" after a regional or at the Championships. They will say "we dominated our matches, but none of the top seeds picked us... why?" These teams need to remember that other teams have many choices of partners, and if all esle is equal, a picking team would rather not choose a team who has been publicly critical of their design. This is pretty simple logic, people. Keep in mind that words can be harsh and people do not forget what is said against them. Please, for your teammates sake, keep your egos in check and try to use some tact and consideration. Now, most of the replies are very tactful when they are questioning a teams' design... but some are simply stupid. Keep your heads. Andy B. |
|
#112
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Robots
Quote:
|
|
#113
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Re: Re: Robots
Quote:
![]() |
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Stupid marketing
Quote:
![]() |
|
#115
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Robots
Quote:
I talked to my brother last night and I have got to see how great it works!!! See you in T minus 6 days. And maybe I will even have some eggs :-) |
|
#116
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Naaa..
Naaa... it wasn't you guys, Mark.
I see three types of criticism when a team posts pictures of their robot: 1. A post where someone gives constructive criticism, or something said that will actually help the team go through inspection or may help them clarify the legality of their design (for example, Paul's posts in this thread... he has his opinions, and he is sincerely trying to clarify the rules) These are good posts... and they should always be welcome (I'm reminded of the pneumatic cylinder discussion that happened 2 weeks ago... we were able to fix it before we shipped our 'bot) 2. A post where a person outright says that a deisgn or a method of play is not gracious... where they are passing judgement on another team just from a picture. This is pretty shallow and creates discord and strife between teams. This is not smart. 3. A post where someone simply says "we can beat that"... or "I definitely see problems with this design" and that's all that they say. This is simply stupid. Maybe their robot can beat the one which is pictured... they are really not gaining anything by posting these opinions... and if their robot is not as good, then they have egg on their face. I assume that the rest of their team regrets this person representing them on these forums. I hope this clears up what I posted previously. Andy B. Last edited by Andy Baker : 22-02-2003 at 14:30. |
|
#117
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Naaa..
Quote:
I've been feeling the same way you have, and trying to find the words to express it. Thank you. I hope everyone takes a good look at what Andy posted, and remembers it the next time they decide to comment on someone else's robot. |
|
#118
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have read and re-read all the rules and the answers from the official forums. After careful consideration I come to the conclusion that it all comes down to one question: Was using the mid-field bar as a brace intentional? You say no. I have no way to verify this, but also have no way to disprove it--so I will trust you. Therefore, I congratulate you on a truly innovative robot, but recommend that next time you ask FIRST's permission before you step into a grey area.
|
|
#119
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Stupid marketing
Quote:
|
|
#120
|
||||
|
||||
|
As I've said, it's a great looking bot. It's design is great and it's innovation is also. I would love to be paired with it, and hate to be against it.
I'm not doubting the skill or innovative capabilities of team 68. They've never, to my knowledge, tried to skirt the rules. They probably didn't try to here either. Problem is, they might have. If the rule is interpretted to allow their bot to do this, so be it. They took a risk in making it because it's an interpretable rule. They may be asked to remove it. I won't have hard feelings either way, it's out of everyone's hands and I think the 100+ posts on the subject, most saying the same thing, is pointless. My fully personal feeling is the intent of the rule was to not have robots intentionally using the barrier for any purpose. Their's is that it is you may touch it but not break it. Everyone is at a fork in the road. One path is legal, one is illegal, neither are labeled. They chose a path, we'll find out what one they took. We'll see eventually, good luck 68. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Death of FIRST | Anton Abaya | General Forum | 23 | 03-05-2006 17:18 |
| pic: Here is the real robot from Team 1313! | CD47-Bot | Extra Discussion | 6 | 04-03-2003 12:45 |
| Team 68's Robot | Alexander McGee | Robot Showcase | 25 | 16-02-2003 14:32 |
| More 'Best' Robots (a well thought list) | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Disqualifications | archiver | 1999 | 13 | 23-06-2002 21:53 |