i remember this from kettering…it was sweet to see
51, your redirection abilities ROCKED. Keeping the balls out of the center and defensive zones is probably one of the reasons your alliance was able to shut down 27, 201, and 1 in the finals. Also getting the points for hanging is a huge plus to that system.
I love this picture
One of the reasons is because I’ve been told that that specific ball went into a goal after being redirected (in a practice match of course). I wish I could have been there to see that happen (school took priority).
Interesting Battery Containment…
Great job guys. Impressive robot. Congrats on the win.
Yeah the battery containment was interesting. It worked very well and we never faced an issue with it. We did however change it yesterday to a more robust strap, but basically the same concept. We’ve never had one fall out.
There are some non-obvious features of the battery containment that worked out pretty well this year. The side-to-side containment is basically done by the drive motors and their mounting. The rest is basically hidden from view. The straps really just hold the battery into the good containment. It looks strange, but it’s amazingly secure.
I missed the Elims at Detroit.
Did 51 consistantly redirect balls back into the goal?
At Kettering I remember they were having some trouble with this.
But its an awesome idea and design! Go Chief Delp… I mean Wings of Fire!
While 51 was not able to consistently redirect into the goal (I remember seeing this one go in a practice match) in the elims, their ability to simply keep the balls in their zone with teams like 67 and 1023 in there to clean up was more than enough.
It was also extremely frustrating to try and get control of the balls back once they got into that loop. :yikes:
Congrats on your district win, Xerox Creativity Award, and UL Safety Award. See you at states!
As Josh stated, although they were not able to consistently re-score, they were a devastating enemy when they had a team who could score quickly. Their ability to keep control of the balls was a very nice addition to any already strong alliance. They supported 67-HoT very well and I believe everyone expected them to be the first pick of the draft.
When we designed the robot, the real goal was to get the balls near the front of a goal so a partner team could push them in quickly and easily. Our thought was that the majority of the battle for being able to win a match was going to come in the neutral zone, and whoever could get balls into the offensive zone the fastest would win. We thought that if we scored 10-20% of our redirected balls, that’s a bonus, but getting them quickly into easy scoring position was the design goal.
We made a few versions of turret extenders during the last fix-it window, and we’ll test them out when we get a chance.
The thing I’m most happy about from this event is that we became enough of a kicking threat that we don’t need to redirect all of the time. I’m hoping that strategic flexibility pays off at States and Atlanta.
It’s great to see 51 in action and already off to a winning start. A great beginning to a new tradition from two former powerhouses.
That being said, while I have been a strong supporter of this strategy in terms of legality, I’m not sure about the legality of team 51’s device. 469’s is clearly legal, but the fact this robot is hanging introduces some doubt into my mind.
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.
Would the hanging elements of the robot be considered part of the same “MECHANISM” as the ball redirection chute?
MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.
I’d say yes. It’s not a mistake that they put the chute into the position so it provides the very specific functionality of redirecting the balls. They also accomplish the hanging bonus, but a MECHANISM can accomplish more than one functionality.
I’m not positive they’re illegal, but I’m not confident that they’re legal, either.
From the looks, either the hanger or the redirector could be removed without affecting the other’s operation (aside from the obvious larger impact forces on the redirector if the hanger is removed). That, to me, indicates two separate mechanisms. Only the one doing the interacting has the 3" limit.
The flexiblity WILL pay off as teams try harder to prevent you from hanging and redirecting balls. And as long as the balls get near the goal I’d agree that it doesn’t really matter if they go in or not (unless you play 469 which would be a very interesting game indead). You guys hang for 2 extra points, but 469 can get out of their position at any time which can prove very useful too.
Anyway, Awesome job, Awesome win, and Awesome robot
As Eric said, everything used to hang is completely independent of everything used to redirect.
We (125) agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation as you will all see next week in Boston.
And we assumed that as soon as you asked for the clarification in the Q&A