Posted by Ken Leung at 03/26/2001 1:09 AM EST
Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.
In Reply to: anyone use an arm to help balance
Posted by Joel G on 03/25/2001 3:39 PM EST:
I always wonder, after watching all the regionals, if the bridge is doing what it’s intended to do when FIRST first came up with that idea…
When I first saw the bridge in kickoff, I thought, “Uh oh, it’s going to be tough balancing…” The swinging motion seemed so smooth that I thought it was on a pivot point. I thought it’s going to take some serious thoughts to get the goals multipliers…
However, the regionals proved me wrong. A lot of time I saw a robot balanced only by moving back and forth counteracting the bridge’s movements. I am starting to wonder if arms like ours are really worth developing.
Just last two regional, the winner of both competition was balanced because of a great driver. In other cases, robots balanced the bridge by one side being 1" off the ground…
Did FIRST really intended this bridge to be this easy to be balanced? I always thought that this bridge was intended to have some “fancy” components from robots to get balanced.
I am not saying no one did that. I can think of lots of robots that have components to balance. Devices like our arms and team 442’s, long arms that pushes goals to a balanced position… And I guess arms like those on the Beatty machine or Metal in motion have an advantage of not balancing on the bridge…
It’s just that drive train seems to be a too easy of an option. In every year of competition, every robot has to develop a good drive train anyway…
So I don’t know. Is the bridge too easy of a challenge? When I say easy, I mean it in the context that the nature of the drive train is already a solution long before the problem was stated. It is as if some thinking was already done before the competition started…
Do you think FIRST expected teams to solve that problem like this?