Alright, so I am wondering as you may have noticed throughout the past years, there is alot of matches in which it becomes 2 bots vs. 3 bots, after robot problems. During the past years, that was an advantage usually to the alliance of 3 bots, but does not seem like it this year. If there is only 2 bots on the other alliance, the alliance of 3 would have a less chance of scoring there moon rocks and cells. What is gonna be in place to make sure it is equal and fair amongst all situations? In this case, would the trailer be removed from the field or would the trailer be left somewhere to be scored into? As well in this situation, would the 20 moon rocks for that team still be given to the alliance? I guess there needs to be some clearification on the alliance situations.
What they’ve done in the past is pick a surrogate team, or a team that fills in for the missing team. That way, it stays 3 on 3.
In ten years of participation, I have never seen this happen.
Firstly, that partly depends on what happened to the third robot. Did they not show up for the match, or did they have to press the e-stop? If it’s the second case, there’s no rule that you can’t score on a disabled robot’s trailer (as far as I’m aware) so if that’s the case the alliance with the busted bot is pretty much screwed. Especially if they never moved in the first place and spend the match right in front of the opposing team’s human player. :ahh:
If it’s the first case… that’s a tough one. It depends a lot on the robots that are on the field and the strategies they use. I’d say that you’re right, it looks like the short-handed alliance has an advantage. Not an incredibly game-breaking one, though.
According to <G10>:
ROBOT Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, each TEAM negotiates within their ALLIANCE to select one of the three LAUNCH PADS of the ALLIANCE. Each ROBOT is then HITCHED to the TRAILER assigned to the selected LAUNCH PAD. The ROBOT and TRAILER are then placed entirely within the LAUNCH PAD, and positioned such that the TRAILER is in contact with the AIRLOCK or guard rail (as appropriate).
TRAILERS are assigned to LAUNCH PADS. So I assume they’re always on the field, whether there’s a robot or not. A robotless TRAILER is going to be a dead easy target to score on, so I think a 2 robot team is going to have a huge detriment. So… Don’t forget to show up for a match!
:eek: Wow, I missed that when I read the rules. Man, that prospect is…frightening.
well in the case of a robot, breaking down and not being able to go out on the field and compete, well there has to be something to give the other team a little better chances, because that clearly does not seem too fair.
And to the idea of just another robot, that really is not going to work out because there would be problems with equality amongst the teams. Who would you put in the match… and the always notices “they got more matches then i did excuse” at that moment?
I am hoping there is some rule or answer to this, as this will probually cause alot of situations.
TRAILERS are assigned to LAUNCH PADS. So I assume they’re always on the field, whether there’s a robot or not. A robotless TRAILER is going to be a dead easy target to score on, so I think a 2 robot team is going to have a huge detriment. So… Don’t forget to show up for a match!
yeah that seems more understandable. I guess I missed that. Thanks :]
<G10> ROBOT Starting Positions – Prior to the MATCH, each TEAM negotiates within their
ALLIANCE to select one of the three LAUNCH PADS of the ALLIANCE. Each ROBOT is
then HITCHED to the TRAILER assigned to the selected LAUNCH PAD. The ROBOT and
TRAILER are then placed entirely within the LAUNCH PAD, and positioned such that the
TRAILER is in contact with the AIRLOCK or guard rail (as appropriate)
However this rule says the robot is hitched to the trailer in the launch pad, so by my understanding if a team did not show up the launch pad can’t just be filled up with only a trailer, but even if that interpretation is correct, the chances of team not showing up to their match is very slim, there is a much higher chance of a robot stopping on the field because of whatever reason (broken power cord, chain loose, ect…) then that stationary bot becomes a very easy target for the human players.
I see that as very unlikely. If the trailer would indeed be place out alone, how would it be stood up? It only has two wheels so I assume the hitch would be used as a “leg,” and I assume that could scratch the floor (which naturally wouldn’t be desirable). Furthermore, it would be pushed and knocked over the playing field, likely falling over at some point due to its two wheels, and causing problems for everyone.
[NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM]
If only 2 teams show for an alliance, one side is going to have an advantage. If only 2 TRAILERS are placed on the field, the alliance with the no-show has an advantage. If 3 TRAILERS are placed on the field, the full alliance has an advantage. I’d imagine they wouldn’t want to favor the no-show’s alliance, so the advantage would go to the full alliance.
[/NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM]
They don’t necessarily have an advantage. Although there are less trailers to be scored on, there are also less robots to do the scoring.
Look at the image in 6.2.3 “Launch Pads.” Your alliance’s TRAILERS (and vice versa) start directly in front of the opposing alliance’s HUMAN PLAYERS. A decent human player should be able to make almost every single ball into the stationary TRAILER sitting three feet away. If there was a robot attached to the TRAILER, the TRAILER would be moving and farther away, making it significantly harder to make shots in. It doesn’t deal with the number of trailers or robots, it’s the ease of the Human Player’s shot.
My guess is that if a robot does not show up then the team would not be allowed to play during that match. That would mean that one of their payload specialist stations would be unmanned and 20 moonrocks would go unused.
<G40>
GAME PIECE Interaction – With the exception of PAYLOAD SPECIALISTS, no TEAM member may contact GAME PIECES at any time during the MATCH. Violations will result in a PENALTY.
This is going to be a pretty stable thing. The wheels only stick 2" under the bottom of the trailer. With all the geometry, it will end up resting on the end of the trailer tongue, but only with a 4 degree tilt. It may scratch up the floor slightly, but it’s a nice rounded corner, so I doubt it. I think the only real concern that might keep the trailer off the field without a robot is worry over the trailer tongue being damaged.
I was referring to this:
If only 2 TRAILERS are placed on the field, the alliance with the no-show has an advantage.
The trailers didn’t seem to have any real problems staying upright at the Manchester Kickoff event.
They just kind of sit there chilling, like “Hey I’m a trailer, where’s my robot?”
http://www.team228.org/gallery/97/slideshow/2009-first-kickoff-event_3d4e9-229f0.jpg](http://www.team228.org/media/pictures/view/4528)
http://www.team228.org/gallery/97/slideshow/2009-first-kickoff-event_905d3-5b46e.jpg](http://www.team228.org/media/pictures/view/4523)
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I’m certain that they’ll still set the trailers on the field even if a robot doesn’t show up. Otherwise, if your alliance didn’t field any robots, the other alliance couldn’t score any points. Elimination matches are going to be pretty boring if no one wants to put their robot on the field.
I do expect, though, that as in past years, human players will still be allowed to participate, even if they do not bring a robot.
I don’t think so. This hasn’t been true in the past, and according to 9.6.3, it doesn’t look like it’ll be true this year.
9.3.6 A TEAM is declared a no-show if no member of the team is in the ALLIANCE BASE, FUELING STATION, or OUTPOST at the start of the MATCH; a no-show team will be disqualified from that MATCH. (emphasis mine.) Thus, a team is only DQed as a no-show if a human player, not the robot, does not show up. And that seems pretty standard.
Notice: high school student in the room. I’m going to try my hand at this–please correct me if I’m wrong. Here goes nothing:
This distinction seems ill-placed. While both definitions are correct in certain circumstances, the circumstances, not the terms are different.
(I believe) there is no actual difference between friction and traction. Traction is simply a term frequently used to describe static friction, particularly in drive systems.
According to Columb (and basically everyone else), friction, in theory, is solely the product of the robots mass (essentially) and the coefficient of friction (static for rolling or non-moving surfaces, kinetic for sliding). Thus, the only ways to control friction are through robot weight (i.e. max it out at 120lbs) and wheel movement–keep them rolling, not sliding. The latter can only be accomplished by keeping acceleration below the maximum force allowed by the mu_s. (F=ma=Ff=muFn=mumg, so a=mu*g, and so without modifying gravity, we’re pretty stuck.)
Now, according to life in general, surface area plays a part. But it’s not in the equation! Ah, but it is. Surface area can effect mu (actually, probably more often vice-versa). Softer surfaces (better traction) require more surface area (think side wall weight support) to be structurally sound and to withstand greater wear and tear. There are some other dynamic contact issues that arise when the “ground” surface is non-uniform, but that’s less of an issue on regolith–not to mention even a little more out of my depth to explain.
So, MEs and physicists alike, help me out here. I think that’s right.