Team 900's Secret Sauce

FIRST General Forum
#43

[citation needed]

I think you are referring to team 71 from 2002, who used file cards to adhere to the carpet. It’s an extremely effective way to grip onto a carpet material, and can damage the carpet. Using metal devices like that to latch onto the carpet is illegal (R06), but any high traction material can be used as long as it satisfies R06. Otherwise your robot would not be allowed to have wheels.

Regarding the immovable defense robot concept, I think the penalty risk is very high this year and it’s a good strategy to use if you want to generate an event high score for the opposing alliance. There may be other years in the future where that kind of robot could be useful though. Be sure to add a spring/damper system to your large dropdown pad so that the opposing robot can’t scoot you by ramming into you.

#44

Team 71 in 2002. I may have been two at the time, but I certainly love FRC History…

#45

Rhino tracks are a thing. Good luck pushing a Rhino track robot sideways… we drafted 5464 at the Lake Superior Regional for this exact purpose and to fill this exact role. We lost because of penalties… Body on body defense is highly effective in this game, but only if done strategically and at the right time.

I love the idea of using your third robot to fill this role early in the match in order to gain an early advantage on the Scale while the opposing alliance stupidly has their third robot filling the Vault for Levitate in the first 30 seconds…

#46

I think this is too situational for use. Also, it seems like refs at most events don’t catch some penalties so I’d be weary of that and make sure they know what you’re planning ahead of time.

#47

This strategy is lost on folks who are not afraid to take risks and this is a risky strategy that can be insanely effective given a few thoughts.

In that video 5518 was suffering from coms issues and 3459 was not willing to try and push through that traffic with their alliance partner in the way so it worked in that case.

At champs you have nothing to lose if you are a lower seeded alliance and I could see this as a game breaking strategy if a lot of teams started doing this. Blocking your own alliance null zone while scoring on the scale so the opposite alliance cannot flank and parking and braking in theirs to become immovable is not hard to do.

Being pushed is a non issue if this is a strategy you design into your machine. Swerve drives like 900 can lock their wheels at 45 degrees relative to the frame perimeter on all 4 corners and good luck EVER pushing a 120 pound swerve hunkered down like that.(First image for reference)
https://team1640.com/wiki/index.php?title=DEWBOT_VIII_Drive_Train

As for tank drives, if you were around in 2012 you saw many teams add a little pneumatic piston hovering above their wheels with a shoe on the end of the bore to act as a brake so they wouldn’t slide off the bridge or get bumped by another team. With so many Everybots with weight to spare, adding a little pneumatic brake to each side of the kit tank drive is a simple and effective way to stopping even the most bulky machines from pushing you out of the way. You could have it on a button where you drive up and hold it down (while killing signal to drive motors so you cant break anything) to hold your position and really make a mess out of every holonomic drive and most tank drive machines who try to push you and can’t figure out why you are so stiff.

Being able to position correctly so that they can’t get their bumper across the plane of course is easier said than done against experienced drivers. If you have a nice wide robot and weight to spare this might come in handy at champs…thanks for sharing!

#48

While I don’t think anyone here was making reference to 1817, I can add some context to this.

The tipping happened across the field so it’s likely the drivers never saw the opponent starting to tip before pushing forward and tipping.

Let’s assume the drivers saw what was happening and followed through. Yes, that’s less than GP. But, let’s take a look at what happened afterwards.

As expected, 1817 appeared to the question box. They had just received a red card. Not expected, it wasn’t to question the red card. Instead, it was to question the auto line crossing of all three robots. One had been scored incorrectly (user error inputting it.) The refs on the field remembered the crossing and were able to correct the score. As a result, 1817’s alliance was awarded the Auto Quest RP.

Why is this one of my favorite moments of this FRC season? 1817 still didn’t question the red card. This means they took their time to argue an auto cross that awarded their alliance 1 RP. As they weren’t eligible for the RP, this means they successfully argued for two other teams to get the RP. If we view standings, this potentially hurts 1817 as two other teams gain RP while they do not.

With respect to your reply coming to the idea that tipping might hurt your reputation with other teams, I share this context to point out nothing should be hurt by this match. A robot tipped. It happens with defense. But, it’s far more rare for a team to fight for two other teams to get the RP. Kudos to you all for that.

#49

Are you sure this is the advice you’d give?

If refs miss penalties, that helps 900’s strategy. Penalties only happen if 900 is pushed into the null territory while playing defense. In this case, 900 gets a tech foul.

If 900 warns refs to pay close attention based on the strategy, they’re less likely to miss penalties. If they miss the penalties, they correctly wave the tech foul flag against 900.

#50

I agree with Marshall on this one. I spent time combing the manual and the only rule I saw related to this was R06, which does not prohibit the use of this part (http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-3309.htm) that I linked in my original post of this idea, a part found on the wheels of many robots. This is different than team 71 from 2002’s file card drivetrain, which would be illegal under R06.

#51

But isn’t the team that pushes and hypothetically makes you cause damage to the carpet the one responsible for the damage and should be the one called for the penalty or called for C07 (which I’m sure damaging carpet would classify as egregious)? :eek:

All of this hypothesizing makes me want to get an event volunteer badge that has the “My Brain Hurts” label on it.

#52

The only robot I can think of that won champs recently with a brake plate was 2848 in 2014. I don’t remember anything about it being illegal.

#53

I’m totally agreeing that the purpose of R06 is to prevent the use of file cards or other carpet-damaging traction devices as Team Hammond (FRC 71) used in 2002. R06 does not say anything about rubber treads, nor any treads which do not damage the carpet. If I were to deploy a “Kizzy” (that is, “stay put”) device on a carpeted surface, I would certainly consider using AndyMark’s pebbletop tread, some oriented in either direction, over any amount of wedgetop or roughtop based on my experience with it. Also, notice that the 2002 issue was a robot which was utilizing traction to forcibly cross the carpet, not a robot that was just trying to remain in place; traction used to remain stationary might or might not get a pass.

#54

The general question I ask myself with respect to C07 is this: is the robot trying to play the game as intended?

If the robot is trying to drive into the null territory to score on the scale, that’s trying to play the game as intended. If something happens as a result, that’s the fault of the defensive robot.

Similar to the blue box calling out playing defense near the null territory being a risk a defensive bot takes, I’d see the carpet in the same respect. Creating a mechanism that can potentially cause damage is a risk you take. If you cause the damage as a result of another team playing the game, expect the rules to be enforced.

#55

I’ve been trying to figure this out, and finally concluded that as a drive coach I would be more than happy to pick up a 25 point penalty running through the opposing null zone so that I can continually whack the opposing robot parked in my null zone on the back side (where the bot is now sandwiched) where I can set a new scoring record of 2000 points…

#56

Our team got a yellow card for this… The situation was a little different in that the opposing bot was disabled in the middle of our null zone. We kept placing cubes on the scale, and hit them on the way in and the way out eventually pushing them up the outrigger. Some hits were accidental, some were likely more intentional. Regardless, the ref considered it egregious. We were worried it was going to be a red card they talked about it for so long…

#57

It’s hard to imagine any world where this post was intended to cause “no offense”. It’s unfortunate that certain adults on these forums think that students shouldn’t be allowed to discuss strategies unless they meet an arbitrary level of success.

#58

Before you employ that strategy, I’d recommend taking a look at C07 and G14. Depending on the situation, both come into play.

#59

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t 71 get around the rules about damaging the field by claiming that others were damaging the field by pushing them or something? Immediately after FIRST banned metal-on-carpet contact altogether that’s for sure. I don’t remember if there was a “field damage” clause that year.
A quick look here: https://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/frc/game-and-season-info/archive/2002/2002-game-manual.pdf shows rules that should have banned 71’s strategy. I’m not sure when those were added to the manual.

DQ4. Deliberately damaging the playing field, controls or balls is strictly illegal and will result in disqualification of your alliance. Robot wheels must not, for example, damage the field carpet.

#60

I agree with all of your points about 71 from 2002. My point is tread is different from file cards (the tread is on the wheels of many robots and is also used in the andymark rhino track drivetrain). Applying the field damage rule to a robot with about a 20" by 25" plate of this stuff if it got pushed would require applying it to robots with rhino tracks and some other robots as well if they get pushed from the side in a way that damaged the field, something I don’t think should or will be done.

Also, in stronghold, rhino tracks were never (as far as I know) pushed away from the side, meaning even more of the same material would not get pushed and therefore not cause damage to the carpet. This would make the argument over whether or not the pushing or the defensive robot would be held responsible a moot point.

#61

Not sure why people keep wailing on the strategy.

It is obviously extremely situational, But with a good drive-train, good driving, and proper execution it could turn the tide of a match. That’s what strategy is for, taking all the aspects of your situation and using them for your own alliance’s benefit. If that requires a strategy used seldom and used only in a few situation, then I say go for it. If it works, it works. It might not work always, but it will work in the proper situation.

Never count out a strategy until you look at all the facts first.

#62

It would be a fair statement to say that there are several robots against whom this could work as they alone could not push you, however if two of those robots teamed up I would bet they could push you straight sideways right through their null zone while you incur all the penalty points and can not get out because they have you in a t-bone pin. If I was a drive coach and saw a team try to implement this strategy I would tell my drivers and another team on the alliance to grab a cube and go after you. You also have to be careful not to get pushed into the scale as that is a secondary penalty (depending on how the ref reads the rule about robots being forced into penalties)

At SMR we saw a team try to play defense around the opposing null zone and they wound up getting over 200 points in penalties iirc. We promptly listed them as “STAY AWAY!” on our scouting notes.