Posted by Chris at 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST
Student on team #610, Coyotes, from Crescent School.
If there was one team that could have stood a chance against that alliance it was Woburn (Team #188). With the capacity of being able to get four large balls on the goals, they could have beat the winning alliance given the right partners. Unfortunately a bad draw caused an otherwise excellent team to fail.
Check out their site.
Posted by Wayne Cokeley at 04/09/2001 10:27 PM EST
Coach on team #25, Raider Robotix, from North Brunswick Twp. H.S. and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
: If there was one team that could have stood a chance against that alliance it was Woburn (Team #188). With the capacity of being able to get four large balls on the goals, they could have beat the winning alliance given the right partners. Unfortunately a bad draw caused an otherwise excellent team to fail.
: Check out their site.
I will agree that 188 had a very neat idea with their design. We watched them time after time from the practice rounds through most of their seeding rounds and my assistant coach had them as a top choice for alliance partner. However repeatedly in the rounds either they couldn’t hold onto the goals or their partners never worked well with them and as a result we never saw the actual squeezing of the balls between the goals. Often the picking up of the two central balls took a bit of effort and time too. In one practice round we were even shouting to the alliance partners to let them try it but it looked like nobody would work with them.
The winning alliance appeared to be at the limits of scoring for what the time would allow. Maybe a small ball or two in that far goal? Who knows- its over now.
Too bad they didn’t allow one DREAM TEAM round where the top seed could pick any three partners just to see what the highest score could be. Might have been interesting.
WC
Posted by Matt Leese at 04/09/2001 10:28 PM EST
Other on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
The second place alliance could’ve beaten the first place alliance – but they’d needed to be able to do what they did about 10 seconds faster. It wasn’t so much machine design as it was driving practice. Beatty could double balance quickly and reliably – that’s what let them win. The design was great but the design was only part of their ability to win.
Matt who was rooting for the 2nd place alliance just because he likes underdogs 
Posted by P.J. Baker at 04/09/2001 10:41 PM EST
Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
The Beatty Alliance was not unbeatable, just unlikely to be beaten. There were several alliances in the elimination tournament that were capable of hitting 700+ points (Buzz (175), Kingman (60), Bobcat (177), 33, & 147). It’s just that none of us were as reliable with it as the Beatty Alliance. Balancing two from off the ramp was clearly the winning strategy this year, and Beatty’s machine was the best at it. My hat is off to them and their alliance partners.
P.J. Baker
Team #177
Posted by Ken Leung at 04/09/2001 11:19 PM EST
Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
The first thought that came to my mind when thinking about this was: “If there is a team that can beat Beatty, it will have to be Wildstang…”
Not trying to say other teams can’t do it, just that it’s my instant respond when thinking about the problem.
If robots are able to leave the goal(s) on the bridge as Wildstang intended to be, then they could’ve easily balance two goals off the ramp and get 700~710.
If that happened, then we would have to see how Beatty deal with that score… Attempt to score much higher match? or go for the tie breakers…
Posted by Justin Ridley at 04/10/2001 9:07 AM EST
Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
I know Wildstang and company could have gotten 710. . .
Beatty obviously could have matched it. What it would
have come down to is human players trying to toss a
little ball across the field into the opposite goal.
That’s the only way I can see either of those alliances
scoring over 710, as doing it 30 seconds quicker was
impossible.
I was very happy with the finals this year as I think
for the first time in a long while the best robots were
represented here. The divisions really allowed for the
best of the best to get to the end, and this made for
excellent finals. Wildstang vs. Beatty. . . you just
can’t get better than that.
Justin Ridley - 221 MI Roboworks
Posted by D-Peezy at 04/10/2001 8:56 PM EST
Student on team #94, TechnoJays, from Southfield High School and Lear Corporation.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
Do those 2 balls in the middle really count? I thought they had to be on top of the goals.
Posted by Ian Mackenzie at 04/11/2001 4:26 PM EST
Student on team #188, Woburn Robotics, from Woburn C.I…
In Reply to: Re: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by D-Peezy on 04/10/2001 8:56 PM EST:
: Do those 2 balls in the middle really count? I thought they had to be on top of the goals.
Yes, they most definitely do count…the balls do not have to be on top. Balls must be touching goals and nothing else in order to count, and the two balls in the middle satisfy that condition. In the first few days of brainstorming, I e-mailed Eric Rasmussen asking whether an arm touching a small black ball at the bottom of a goal voids all the balls on top (because they are indirectly supported by the robot) and he replied that the ONLY balls that do not count are ones that are directly touching a robot.
-Ian Mackenzie
Posted by Travis Hoffman at 04/11/2001 9:47 AM EST
Engineer on team #48, Delphi E.L.I.T.E., from Warren G. Harding High School and Delphi Automotive Systems .
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
Yes, the winning alliance was beatable. In fact, the runner-up alliance could have won, if they could have loaded 11 small balls and could have successfully placed both large balls on the goals. 4 robots in end zone + 2 large balls + 11 small balls = 71 points. If the balls were loaded fast enough, they could have easily done all this in less than a minute - 10X multiplier. 71 x 10 = 710 points. 710 seems to have been the scoring limit of Beatty’s alliance. At the very least, the losing alliance could have matched the Beatty alliance’s performance. And perhaps the stretcher could have somehow been integrated into the runner-up’s strategy?
Team 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E. was chomping at the bit to get a chance to play with the Killer Bees and WildStang in the playoffs. After rallying with a 537 (thanks in part to WildStang and the rest of that great alliance) and a 320 on Saturday, we sat in 11th place in Archimedes, ready, willing, and able to place the large balls up on top for the team. It seems that our articulated arm was able to do so quickly and consistently in Michigan and Florida. Alas, we weren’t picked, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Congratulations to both alliances in the finals on executing a well-fought battle.
Travis Hoffman
Engineer, Delphi E.L.I.T.E. Team 48
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Posted by Mike Sklar at 04/11/2001 3:08 PM EST
Engineer on team #21, ComBBAT , from Astronaut H.S. and Titusville H.S. and Brevard Community College and Boeing Company and NASA-KSC.
In Reply to: Was the winning alliance unbeatable?
Posted by Chris on 04/09/2001 10:06 PM EST:
I strongly believe that although the Beatty Hammond et. al. alliance was the strongest they were beatable or at least (tieable? Is that a word). We were finalists on the Archimedes field and lost to the alliance that made it to the finals against Beatty (#33, #254 etc.).
Our alliance was led by Haworth Holland (#74, a ball handler)and consisted of Motorola (#267), Baxter Heatwave (#312), Boeing ComBBAT (#21, yours truly) and Arab HS (I forgot the number). In our division semi-final match we scored 600 points, balancing both goals before the 1:00 mark, and getting all 4 robots in the endzone. It would have been a tying score of 700 if we had not dropped a large ball from the goal while placeing it on the bridge.
This was possible because Heatwave can quickly place a large ball on a goal and put the goal on the bridge from the floor (just like Beatty just not quite as reliable). Motorola lifts a single goal and places it on the bridge while on th floor. Thus it was possible, but just didn’t happen.
Clearly the obvious (it’s always obvious at the end)solution to dominate is to load the bridge from the floor and avoid having to balance your own 130lb mass on the bridge.