Most Effective Scoring Design?

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.

<removed photo of robot that never existed>

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

You can't rely on your drive team to bring all the magic to the field. You gotta have a fair bit in the robot too!

-Nick

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Nick Lawrence also drove for 1503 in 2010.

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

I agree a good driver can't fix everything but neither can a good design. a 14 jointed arm may be the optimal way of scoring a game piece but if your driver can't use it you aren't going to be doing well.

In general I would claim that no one part of the system is best. I would claim that the most effective scoring system is the one which your team is adequately able to design, manufacture, iterate, program, and drive. I'm just saying that you have to evaluate things as a system rather than as a single item inside that system.

[Nick Lawrence]

Also, in the above photo that does not exist, what is that one judge in the background doing?

-Nick

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

Also, in the above photo that does not exist, what is that one judge in the background doing?

-Nick

Laughing at you trying to drive on two bent wheels.



But on the topic of driver vs. machine, I think there are designs that lend themselves to easier driver control.

Driver skill was most important in the midfield play where you had to switch between offense and defense while grabbing useful tubes from the clusterf*** (pardon my french) of robots, tubes and inane boundaries. Arm and elevator alike faced similar problems.

Machine was most important in actually scoring. A long arm like 694's (I think we were dangerously close to or actually out of the perimeter dimensions of 84") was unwieldy, wobbly and hard to hang with. Elevators had the advantage of being able to line up parallel to the axes of the field, especially with swerve or Swiss drive. See 177's auton. The robot lined up its tube horizontally and vertically and smashed themselves face first into the rack. And hung tubes like that. And it didn't take a good driver at all.

Ergo, elevators always win. (It's a point of personal contention; I pushed elevators early on, and I got shut down by the arm camp)

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Ergo, elevators always win.

Not necessarily. 987's iteration of a long scoring arm bested many elevators. There's definitely a reason why they were the first pick at IRI.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

Not necessarily. 987's iteration of a long scoring arm bested many elevators. There's definitely a reason why they were the first pick at IRI.

I don't think I ever saw 987 in action, but yeah, okay, there were long, fixed-length arms that were driven well. However, I'm sure it wasn't easy at all to practice up to that skill level. An elevator still has the advantage of being easy from the get-go, because lining up with the pegs is so straightforward. You are always at the same distance from the rack, no matter what height you're trying to get. (That's another advantage of telescoping designs in general; you can always be in the "safe" scoring zone. Sometimes, your arm pushes you out into the "get pushed around" zone.)

[XaulZan11]

In determining the best design, I don't think you should look at how the top teams do, because they have enough talent, experience and dedication to make almost any design work. 111 would have been an elite scorer with 330's design, 254 would have been equally sucessful with 1503's design. Instead, I think its wise to look at which designs lead teams to have breakout years. In doing this, I think the elevator with short roller arm (like 111, 254) shows to be the best design. 1675 used this design to have easily their best year (Alliance captian at both regionals and championship) and 2122 was quietly one of the best tube scorers (upset 148/234 on Newton then IRI finalist) with this design as well. There are a few others teams that had their best year with this design, but I can't think of them right now.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

Don't forget about the hundreds of other talented drivers in FRC.

Don't forget about the hundred or so other words in that post.

[Hawiian Cadder]

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

I absolutely loved Team 40 this year. Their pink- style arm was very effective and their elimination-round strategy nearly forced a rubber match on us in the semifinals. Watching their swerve do a double tube autonomous was pretty slick as well.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

That was a the Granite State Regional. I will agree, I was in awe of their robot this past season. What makes team 40 stand out is their unique drivebase that gives them crab like drive and amazing strategy.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder

I thought team 40 was pretty insane this year, I didn't see them much at CMP but i remember they did 4 complete logos by themselves at a regional somewhere. while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein i think that it was one of the more elegant solutions requiring no turning around to score.

Think of 987's robot as an elevated 233 design...we often picked up on one side and scored on the opposite without turning around ...even during our 2 tube auto... enough to make it to Einstein with great partners but not enough to advance to final round

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

...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.

I've seen their claw shatter at least once per tournament (and I've watched them at 6 in-season and off-season tournaments). They usually have around 6 spares with them, and usually fix it often.



As to design, many teams have a vertical elevator, short arm, and roller claw used by us, and teams such as 254 and 111. Note that all of these robots have a vertical elevator, short arm, and pneumatic-release roller claw, and all were developed independently, which tells me that it is likely very close to the optimal solution.

[sgreco]

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.

It's always fun to analyze "the best design", but Chris is right; it doesn't matter what design you have, it's all about specific implementation and practice.