Most Effective Scoring Design?

[AlecMataloni]

With the regular season over and the off-season coming to a close, we've seen tubes scored with single jointed arms, lifts, arm/lifts, Rube Goldberg Machines (Team 118 ), etc. In your opinion, what was the most effective type of scoring mechanism used in Logomotion?

Most effective, or most interesting/unique? Most effective was 254's roller claw/elevator combination (it did win champs this year after all!). The most interesting/unique design was easily 118's. I love their entire bot, which looks like half of it was salvaged from a shopping cart!

[MattC9]

From what I saw 254 had a very smooth fast and consistent scoring device. Why? because it was very fast, simple and consistent. So in my opinion a machine like 254,111,33,118 (yes 118 counts) and any other team that had the roller gripper & the linear lift. Why? Like I said they were fast, simple and consistent.

[Chris is me]

Honestly, it didn't matter what kind you used, as long as you beat the heck out of it and practiced with it to the ground.

If I had the resources, I think something similar to 1625's IRI bot was probably the way to go.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Honestly, it didn't matter what kind you used, as long as you beat the heck out of it and practiced with it to the ground.

I think our claw can attest to that... I'm surprised it still functions after all the crap we put it through. But honestly, I don't think anyone's claw took as much of a beating as 469's did. Their lift slamming that thing on the ground coupled with their aggressive defense put their arm through the ringer. I believe it actually shattered during IRI.

[Marc S.]

1717 at champs had a consistent 10 tube per-match robot. Didn't do as well during regionals but hats of to them for constant improvement. Thats with a krab base, elevator and 'pecker' manipulator.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Nick Lawrence.

Hands down they key to many robots is their driver. If you build a system that may not be as fast as another in THEORY but have a skilled driver you can easily make up the difference.

If i had to pick the most effective design I'd have to say 1503/330 They are simple, easy to manufacture, and allowed teams to have driver practice. Yes they are "worse" than the elevators but part of my evaluation criteria is ease of manufacturing.

[Ninja_Bait]

The Arm+Lift method was definitely tops, but I also like the low mounted, telescoping arms, like Mighty Monkey Wrenches' design.

[CalTran]

Hands down I'd have to say 469's 8 foot elevator was one of the fastest darn things I'd seen all year. That thing dropped like a boss. One of the manipulators I liked best was Team 1986's spatula-esque claw. Their design was so wide I'd be amazed if they couldn't get a tube.

Oh, and there's the Roller-Clamps, but those never seemed to work out too well

[thefro526]

IMO, it seems like the Roller Claw with a Wrist on an Elevator Seemed to be the most effective. The Extra degree of freedom offered by the wrist seemed to add a visible advantage. (See 111 or 254 for this design)

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Nick Lawrence.

Really, Andrew?

[jwfoss]

While teams were able to achieve amazing results with telescoping arm and single joints, I believe the driveablity and repeatability of the linear lift made it somewhat superior. The linear lift, coupled with a roller claw or well designed "pinch" claw seemed to be a very solid combination this year.

A "new" design, at least to me, seemed to show up this year. I consider what 111 and 177 built this year to be "hybrid" designs where they basically have an arm mounted on a linear lift. Very interesting functionality came from this design choice.

In my opinion the roller claw with the ability to open was a huge advance in tube gripper design.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Really, Andrew?

I stand by my claim that a good driver is a key component of an effective design.

[Kearse]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I stand by my claim that a good driver is a key component of an effective design.

I'm going to have to disagree, I feel that there is a large difference between design and execution.

A driver is something that is outside of the robot, and as much as it seems some people on this forum would like to, you can't design a driver. You can design the driver interface (intuitive controls, logical presets, fluid/consistent motion, etc) though.

As for ease of manufacturing and driver practice...The majority of practice for teams occurs during the competition season. Either with their practice bot or at the competition. Being able to easily manufacture a robot (I'm assuming this includes building in a smaller time period as well) is more of a construction/upkeep benefit. The ability to put a robot on the floor in Week 4 instead of Week 5 is mainly an advantage for troubleshooting issues that wouldn't otherwise be seen until later. I can't imagine many teams getting a significant amount of practice time in with their drivers during this time frame.

That being said, ease of manufacturing does imply less likely to break down and easier to repair if it does. Giving a team more time to practice while another robot might have to be maintained. I still find that the practice time difference between an easily manufactured robot and that of one not easily manufactured wouldn't be weeks but hours, and depending on how much a team practices that difference in time can become minimal.

I'll agree that simplicity is always a key feature to a successful robot, and that drivers are a crucial part to any success on the field. Driver's are still something that has to interact with a scoring design, they're not part of it.

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein

Team 2016 had a similar approach, albeit not identical, to a 233 style. They were World Finalists.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Kearse

I'm going to have to disagree, I feel that there is a large difference between design and execution.

A driver is something that is outside of the robot, and as much as it seems some people on this forum would like to, you can't design a driver. You can design the driver interface (intuitive controls, logical presets, fluid/consistent motion, etc) though.

If your driver cannot drive what you put on the field for him to drive, your robot is useless at worst. At best, your robot will be performing at less than its best the entire time.

As a pilot for an R/C airplane team, there are certain things that I will be insisting on when the plane's control surfaces are designed, so that I will be able to keep the plane in the air when it is time to fly it.

Can you design a driver? Not necessarily (practice helps, but not if you don't have some degree of talent). Can you design to play to the driver's strengths and driving style? YES. Designing in such a way that the driver's strengths and style play into your strategy will really help you on the field. This is, of course, assuming that you know your driver ahead of time.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Nick Lawrence.

Hands down they key to many robots is their driver. If you build a system that may not be as fast as another in THEORY but have a skilled driver you can easily make up the difference.

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.



A good driver can't fix everything... (And I know 1503 agrees!)