Bump or bridge?

[Justin Stiltner]

If your design can cross the bump, then you will never be forced to cross the bridge.

As a competitor in the 2001 competition with a similar bridge, I can tell you going over that WILL take you longer than you think, and WILL tip more robots than you think it will. Also, tipping the bridge down so that you can initially get onto it will not be a trivial task for most teams, and will take a significant amount of time. Do not forget that the bridge does not stay down and must be lowered before you can begin to traverse it.

If you doubt me, look up some game video from 2001 and see how bad it can be, that year there were no apposing alliance, everyone was working together as one time and still some robots never traversed the bridge.

[mdiradoorian]

I want to do both why isn't that a poll question.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Go run game simulations and remember the lesson of Breakaway. You are maximally efficient at scoring when you reduce time spent traveling to a minimum. It seems to me like many people on CD are vastly overestimating the number of times a given robot will need to cross the field to be effective. Go look at the name of the game...

Basically, we think that there will be next to no bridge traffic among alliances that are good at playing Rebound Rumble. Designing a robot to cross the bump adds additional design constraints for both your intake and your drive, and saves you... not that much time. The decision you have to make is whether or not the fairly small amount of extra time is worth designing an intake and drive to cross the bump.

[Zuelu562]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

Designing a robot to cross the bump adds additional design constraints for both your intake and your drive, and saves you... not that much time. The decision you have to make is whether or not the fairly small amount of extra time is worth designing an intake and drive to cross the bump.

My team has currently determined that it shouldn't be overly hard to get over the barrier with kitbot West Coast Drive (without any testing mind you), and if we find that we can't do it with the kitbot drive, we will create a mechanism to get over. Designing the intake to deal with that is going to be a challenge, especially going into this planning to not use pneumatics.

5 Weeks and 4 Days 'till Stop Work Day. Good luck Ladies and Gentlebots.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by ThirteenOfTwo

Go run game simulations and remember the lesson of Breakaway. You are maximally efficient at scoring when you reduce time spent traveling to a minimum. It seems to me like many people on CD are vastly overestimating the number of times a given robot will need to cross the field to be effective. Go look at the name of the game...

Basically, we think that there will be next to no bridge traffic among alliances that are good at playing Rebound Rumble. Designing a robot to cross the bump adds additional design constraints for both your intake and your drive, and saves you... not that much time. The decision you have to make is whether or not the fairly small amount of extra time is worth designing an intake and drive to cross the bump.

Good points. A counter question I would have for you is what do you think your estimated time for crossing the bridge will be? Meaning, approach the bridge, tilt it, cross it.

Even if you save 4 or 5 seconds, and you only cross 2 or 3 times in a match, thats saves you around 12 seconds. That could be over 10% of the entire match.

The tradeoff everyone will need to make a decision on, is that time worth saving by complicating other aspects of your design?

-Brando

[mlantry]

to be honest both would be good for flexablity

[kccowan]

FWIW, we're designing a robot to be good at either scoring from our key or clearing (i.e. launching) balls from the alley to our side. We decided NOT to build a robot that would often traverse the field. It seems like the ability to control the balls will be a dominate factor for the main game.

KC

[Gray Adams]

I think it's going to be less important in elims to be able to cross the bump. The strategy that I envision being played out doesn't involve any crossing of the sides more than once, though that requires coordinated and fully functional alliances.

That said, it's not too hard to make a frame capable of crossing the bump anyway without sacrificing much, if anything.

One of our ideas was two powered wheels on two supports connected at an angle. The idea is that you have a sensor rotate the wheels, and if done perfectly, you would barely even notice the bump. Switch them fast enough and you might even be able to drive full speed right through it, as if nothing even happened.

Just an idea.

http://gyazo.com/3bc93bbb13c500e9f7b...png?1326347340

[staplemonx]

We are doing the bump

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

psst....kinda captained an alliance to einstein in 2010 with a robot that never went over bumps.

That's true, but I think that the 2010 game had a much different dynamic than this game. Zone game play was preferred, and strategies centered on teams staying and controlling a specified zone.

Here, one might have to take multiple trips back and forth in order to retrieve balls. That is, of course, if long range feeder/shooter bots don't become a norm.

But I suppose it's only speculation at the moment. I'll say better to be safe and be able to do both.

- Sunny G.

[Chickenonastick]

The bridge is a safe-haven from defending/opposing robots. As long as you are traversing the bridge of your color, your robot is "completely protected" from any defensive or opposing robots. One side of the bridge leads to your alley, which is also "safe" from opposing robot interaction (unless the opposing robot wants to get fouled). These are guaranteed by rules G28 and G25.

I could not say the same for the bump. A good defensive robot could theoretically pin you anywhere near or on the bump, which causes problems.

[nssheepster]

Simply put, if your only option is the bridge, you are stuck with the bridge. But, if our system can do both, you don't have to worry about it, and can surprise the competitors. Most systems to cross the bump can also be made to cross the bridge. Just do both.

[Wetzel]

Both. Even if you can get over the bridge swiftly and smoothly every time, another robot can fall off and block it or take half the match to negotiate it.

Wetzel

[R1ffSurf3r]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

psst....kinda captained an alliance to einstein in 2010 with a robot that never went over bumps.

we didnt either

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Your most valuable resource in game during a match is time. If it takes you 5 seconds to cross a bridge and 2 seconds to go over the barrier (and neither damages/tips your robot), it is best to traverse the barrier. This extra 3 seconds per zone change is an extra 3 seconds that could be used to get that balance done just right as the clock strikes 0, or hit that buzzer beating 3 pointer! Always keep time in mind when evaluating your options.

I like this kind of optimization approach to thinking in FRC. With any game with a small count, recycling game piece, the goal ultimately will become at the very top level an efficiency challenge.

Remember 469? Try your hardest. It's still week 1, anything is possible.