Blue Wins

Found it interesting after a review, CHS SWV event the blue side had 40 wins while red had 21 through 62 qualification matches. (1 tie) Is this coinsidence?

Yes.

Interesting that you are sure. I would like to think so too. However experience tells me such things should be confirmed. Not sure if any checks or measures exist or are made to assure field setup and action is working and recorded properly.

Its a very strange coincidence that also has been shown to happen at all regionals/events. For whatever reason, blue alliance wins more often than red. This is not implying that a red alliance won’t win a regional, but for whatever reason the blue alliance is more likely to win a match. Its a very weird trend. I don’t remember where all on that data is compiled, but if I find it, I’ll link it.

My guess is that if this is truly the case, it has to do with playoff blumper color assignment. IIRC assuming a perfect bracket the higher alliance is always blue. There, it makes sense that the blue alliance generally has a higher chance of winning. I expect if you kust look at the data for quals, you’ll see a much more random distribution.

I can assure you, there is no grand FRC conspiracy to disadvantage the red alliance

Not quite - in quarterfinals, higher seed is always red. After that, the colors are as follows:
SF:

  • Seed 1 or 8 - Red
  • Seed 2 or 7 - Red
  • Seed 3 or 6 - Blue
  • Seed 4 or 5 - Blue

Oops…remembered that backwards :rolleyes:

Without seeing the data then my best guess would be too small of a sample size to properly converge to 50%.

Well obviously there is a statistical bias in the elims but it is an interesting trend in the qualification matches where they shown be about 50/50.

Was never concerned about any conspiracy, simple quality control. If a trend/pattern like this presents, are any checks made? I am unsure of how the field/scoring is set. Was a limit switch slightly out of position? Were all elements in balance, per specification? Are their specifications?

Appreciate I am not pointing fingers or blaming anyone. It could well be coincidence, but should parameters be set so that FTA’s can assure the field is working properly?

Maybe it follows the theory about police officers tagging red cars more often than beige or others that are more color neutral. The red colored bumpers stand out more, and therefore induce more ref fouls because their movement and activity naturally get caught by the ref’s eye more often?

Watching a few of the webcasts I have seen FTAs go use a calibration sick to make sure a scale trips at the correct point after matches that see heavy robot to scale interaction. I believe there is a spec for how far the scale should move to trigger. There is also a general spec for how accurate the field should be for dimensions and such. There is another interesting thread discussing the ratio of the different color randomizations.

At the Glacier Peak Week 4 event in PNW, there were only 2 matches in playoffs where blue won, and they were by the same team in semis. Every other match was red.

There is a statistical bias for red alliance in elims. The point he is making is only for quals where there should not be one.

Qual. 103 Galileo Houston

Watched this match (for something unrelated) but noticed a score error that gave me concern which has to do with the OP of this thread.

Toward the end of this match (57 seconds) Blue clearly controls red switch (indicated by the FMS/scoreboard as well as casual observation. However at 30 seconds left (endgame), red regains control, per FMS/scoreboard although no more cubes have scored or even shifted.

What means of field operation quality control exist and are put in action if a question comes about?

Red played a force…

A binomial distribution puts the probability of 40 or more wins for blue in 61 matches (subtracting ties) at 1.021% (assuming equal win probability), or roughly 1 event per 100. While this seems unlikely, remember that there were 174 events total this season, meaning that we should expect this to happen at one or two events each season. So it’s not THAT unusual to see.

The red lights around the plates emit heat (IR radiation) that heats up the carpet underneath the switch. This heat rises underneath the switch causing it to be pushed upward ever so slightly. Similarly, the red lights under the scale will produce heat that causes the red side of the scale to be pushed upward slightly.

When either the switch or scale is close to evenly balanced, this effect will favor the blue alliance and when taken in aggregate over a large number of qualification matches, this results in the blue alliance winning a disproportionate number of matches.

The Coriolis effect also factors into this, but I will leave that derivation as an exercise for the interested student…

/s

Blue light has higher energy than red light as well, and since E=mc^2, the side with blue lights will weigh slightly more than the side with red lights, pulling down the scale a bit towards blue.

Yes, exactly. And since the particles created at the quantum level when you convert that energy to mass all have positive spin, the Coriolis effect will cause those particles to exert a net downward momentum on the power cubes, at least in the northern hemisphere (which I alluded to in my earlier post). In the southern hemisphere, this momentum will be upward which will cancel out the affect of the heat generated lift on the red platform thus producing a fair game.

One could argue that the Houston Championships was therefore a better tournament than the Detroit Championships, at least for the red alliance. But I am not willing to go quite that far without first solving the Stern–Gerlach experiment accounting for the proximity of the magnetic north pole relative to Ford Field. I have postulated that due to relativistic effects, the shift in the angular momentum due to this nearby magnetic pole may in fact have caused the power cubes on the blue side of the switch and scale to move closer to the fulcrum when being launched and thereby reduce their average moment arm. Thus the matches that were played with a greater number of launches would result in a higher probability of a win for red whereas dropping the cubes would have favored blue, at least in Detroit (this effect is stronger near the magnetic pole). I am still performing the Chi squared analysis of the match data to confirm this theory.

Thank you for pointing that out, I missed it. That explains the scoring in this match, but my OP holds.
Is their a quality control process for the field to assure it is working/scoring properly?