How many triple lvl 3 climbs will there be this year?

robot

#21

I hope that at least one alliance pulls off a triple level 3 climb this year. It’s feasible to design a robot that lifts two partners up with it, but we aren’t crazy enough to try it.


#22

You could probably implement some sort of velcro drum on the side of the robot (Similar to most steamworks climbers) that would grip a rope dangled from a high point of your teammate. Then once all the slack is taken up, raise the drum, and the robot attached to it. Obviously there’s the issue of your teammate getting into the desired position, and actually getting the rope to contact the drum, which was an annoying issue back in 2017 as well. Also the rope would have to have multiple attachment points on your teammate, for obvious reasons. This might be part of our 30 lb allowance.


#23

The main way I saw that it could be done is using a double 148 Robot Wrangler off each side, due to the 30" limitations. Even then you might get too much deflection on some robots interfering with level 2 to make it up to level 3. Don’t know if anyone is crazy enough to try it, but I’d love to see it.


#24

I think you’ll see a pretty good number of teams that can get themselves to Level 3 without blocking the platform / while another robot is on the platform. I think you’ll see very few teams bother to consistently lift up both of their partners. Some, but not necessarily the very top tier.


#25

We are probably not going with that specific idea but you will have to see if we go for the 36 point or not


#26

Oh Wow I did not think even yall were going to try this. I am definitely looking forward to this reveal now!!! I think even some doubles are going to be some awesome mechanisms this year.


#27

That’s what people said about the 148 robot wrangler last year, and it worked like a dream without damaging any other robots (that I know of).


#28

I’ve been wondering when this subject would be brought up on the forum as my team hasn’t stopped talking about it since week 1.

There is a couple of key problems with multi-climbs this year:

  1. Counter-Balance: If you want to carry a robot that is close to your mass with you to level 3, you will need a significant counter weight on the opposite side of the system or you will most likely just pivot towards your teammate. Carrying lightweight bots could help this issue but most robots won’t be light enough
  2. Expansion Limits and bumper zones: You have to leverage your teammates with about a ~26in (30-bumpers) platform that is rigid enough in a way that their bumpers are never sag more than ~2in (referring to the rule that states your bumpers have to be completely above the level you are attempting to get points for)
  3. Hab platform size: Robots can also come up from each level 2 platform and use the front half of their wheelbase to share space, but this requires a climbing system that you can redeploy and it is out of the question for robots trying to go from level 1 to 3 directly.
  4. Unnecessary for ranking point: Unlike last year, you only need to get an assortment of single climbs to get a ranking point, relegating multi-climbs to bonus points.

If you were to do develop a Triple climb, you would basically not use it until its absolutely necessary. As in you will only utilize it tournament rounds, and more importantly as a tie breaker. Speculation says you need all 3 robots to accomplish ~10sec avg. cycle times in order to complete a field multi-climb comfortably, assuming both sides managed to complete the field, a multi-climb would win the match. However defense exist and other unknown variables exist, only time will tell.

For the fun of it I’ll also talk about how a deploy-able ramp could be a viable way to achieve single and double climb. Now since this ramp (just imagine a right triangle for a side view) will have the hypotenuse parallel to your frame at some point the Hypotenuse is limited at 30in. The vertical portion will be 19in as that is the height difference between level 1 and level 3, leaving the ramp about 2ft long at its base (~40deg incline). the trick is that you drop this off the vacant side of your robot, keeping it attached by rope and winch and drive backward onto it until you peak and are safely on the level 3 platform. At this point you could chose to pull the ramp up as is (so you are supporting it and not the level 1 platform) or you can have a second robot mount onto the ramp. If you have enough traction between you and the hab, you will be able to pull them up with your ramp, as you are using the edge of the platform as a ‘pulley’ to transfer lateral force into vertical force and torque. with this you are able to articulate the ramp so that your teammates bumpers are above level 3 and have an optional double climb. In-fact we prototyped this by using 2 humans pulling a bar and measuring force through a force meter and it required about triple the robot’s weight in tension to accomplish this, leaving it on the drawing board for our team. I suspect we are not the only ones to attempt this because 2 teams already asked in the QA if the edge of the surface counts as the top of the surface, which it does.


#29

If you were able to develop a reliable triple climber why would you not use it every match? Let’s use a hypothetical triple climber that works well, but takes 30 seconds for all 3 robots to line up and be lifted. If your alternative was to have a single 3rd level climb and 2 single level climbs you’d have to make up for those lost 18 points from cycling. Very few qualification matches will have you paired up with 2 robots capable of 3 or 4 cycles EACH in the final 30 seconds and still park on the HAB.

To be completely honest 45 points may outright win a lot of qualification matches by itself. (9 for moving forward in sandstorm and 36 for the climb)


#30

Why risk it when you don’t have to?


#31

-To score more points than you otherwise could have without it
-To demonstrate to teams scouting that your climber is “reliable” and that there is little to no risk to lifting them (In case they don’t believe you that it’s reliable. I seldom believe teams can do a hard task like a triple climb unless I’ve seen it performed repeatedly in a match.)
-It’s the next sort criteria after CARGO and HATCH Panels
-I like to see cool robots perform the task they were designed for :wink: If this fictional robot is reliable like I said in my post it’s not a risk, but it is something fun to watch from the stands!


#32

Ok, that make sense, that it’s a fictional robot.

Real robots, have risks associated with lifts/climbs.


#33

Why build something like a triple climber if you’re not willing to “risk” using it? I can completely understand an alliance partner shying away from being lifted (and possibly dropped), but for the team that built the triple climber I wouldn’t understand why they wouldn’t push to use it every match.


#34

If it took time away from their cycling and they weren’t confident they would complete the Rocket RP AND triple climb. Most teams in that situation would rather cement the rocket RP and single climb + park if there was a time trade-off.


#35

There was an FTC game awhile ago (Block Party) where this came up a lot. The game had a bar where one or two robots could hang from in end game for significant points. The risk was if the second robot didn’t get off the ground it would routinely be considered supporting the first robot and neither would get the climb.

Look at the end of some of these matches from last year:
Is 5996 supporting 2502 and 2545?


Is 3940 supporting 2502?

Is 5505 supporting 2502?

If the standard for support this year includes a yes answer for any of these then there is a trade off for trying to get multiple robots to hab 3.


#36

Man, maybe 254 shouldnt of lifted a bot almost every match then last year, theres too much risk involved!!! The points were even worth even less (in comparison) then!!!


#37

Last year even if you were winning on points, two robots needed to be bumpers above the line for the RP. This year you only need one robot on L3 and one robot on L1 to get the RP so the context is different.


#38

RP means nothing come elims. If you cant prove it in quals, why should i trust you in elims?


#39

“If you cant prove it in quals, why should i trust you in elims?”
I miss the spotlight feature.


#40

True, but assuming a robot had a triple climb that they chose not to use in quals I would think they did so because they were confident in getting the RP and the win, therefore seed high enough to be a captain. If that is the case, then they will likely pick teams they know will be compatible with their system for optimal chances of success. If you are seeded above them, and do not trust their mechanism then the right choice would be not to pick them of course.