So after 349 votes 27% of the teams say they will deliver 8 or more game pieces in teleop.
Again 15 seconds auto, 15 seconds charge station, leaves 120 seconds. To do 8 pieces requires a 15 second cycle time.
50’ at an average 12 ft/second is 4.1 seconds or 8.2 seconds per trip. Leaving 6.8 seconds to acquire and deliver a game piece. Doing this 8 or more times a match.
There are still a lot of optimistic teams IMHO. Yes there will be a few teams that will pull this off. They will be counted on my fingers and maybe toes.
That leaves 99.995% of teams doing 7 game pieces or less in teleop a match.
While I agree that teams are being optimistic I think this is pessimistic. Looking at the top 20 ELO heading into the season I think most if not all are capable of an 8 average.
Not included on this list are: 33, 125, 359, 987, 971, 2046, 4414, 4635 and 6800 just to name a few who all are capable of making an 8 or more game piece machine as the past has proven.
This is not an accurate representation of the gear scoring levels in 2017. There were some individual matches in which teams scored 8+ gears, but they were exceptionally rare (and in some cases occurred in the off-season with robot’s re-designed specifically for gear running and gear running-only). The vast majority of matches, even those from high-end teams, were not in the 8-10 range.
For actual data, you can look at this post which shows 3 elite-level gear runners averaging 5.8-6.2 gears/match during their CMP divisions. Here’s a post where Paul Copioli dispels the word-of-mouth exaggerations of some of the elite team’s gear prowess. In that same thread, there’s multiple discussions of team’s hitting the “8 gear club,” referring to the highest number of gears they scored in any match across the season (and certainly not representative of their average performances). In some cases, those were teams with ground intakes scoring gears dropped by alliance partners due to the spring mechanisms used on the airship that year being notoriously finicky.
There’s a point to be made that these averages could and would have been increased had there not been a cap on how many points could be earned by gears (no point in scoring additional gears after achieving the 4th rotor), and that teamwork ended up deflating gear scoring numbers as a result. However, claims of 8-10 gears from good teams is simply ahistorical.
Not saying teams aren’t/weren’t exaggerating about their abilities (very easy to do), but I just want to point out that gear averages in 2017 were pulled down hard at higher levels of play due to the 12 gear limit. 5687 did indeed “only” score about 6 gears per match according to scouting data, but their robot and driving likely wasn’t the limitation on that average considering they achieved the 12 gear limit in every single one of their matches on Carson. Really hard to say based on that data what their true average could have been without the limitation, but it is almost certainly more than 6 per match.
I don’t disagree with you at all. In fact, I made that very point a coupletimes in 2017. But I’m just pointing out that citing 8-10 per match in a threat about average game pieces scored in tele-op is simply not historically true at all for the 2017 game.
My observation is based on empirical data. I don’t know where that other data came from. Our scouting data on 180 showed a higher average. I watched 330 score 9 gears when their ability to shoot fuel was taken away. watched 180 put up 11 in a practice match. Also, the median is higher for those teams as a single low score match can pull down the median. And BTW I wasn’t speaking of averages, I was speaking of proven capabilities.
I’m sure there are many overly optimistic teams. We’re probably among them. But, we are expecting (esp at our week 1 regional) that in most quals matches there will be at least 2 of the close game pieces available in teleop which should make those cycles shorter.
Also initially we’ve geared for ~18ft/sec this year (the gearboxes are designed such that we can pretty easily re-gear for anything from 6 to 60 ft/sec – which should easily cover all reasonable ratios (and many unreasonable ones as well!)
Went back and looked at our Champs quals matches we were at 5.3 gears per matches however we were shooting in auto in all but 2 of them, and in about half of them we give up on gears with enough time for 1 or 2 more gear runs because we hit the rotor limit we can get in the match and took shots at the boiler to break a potential tie.
I will say don’t go back and look at your previous matches if you don’t remember the competition well. So many things make me annoyed all over again (teams “dieing” in our human player zone stopping us from using half of it, bad springs, poor cycle coordination, etc.) I was having a good day before this lol
No, we’ve never actually tried 60 ft/s. We could swap gears and get that, but IMO, that’s downtown crazy town. Even 18 ft/s may prove excessive for this year’s field. We’ll know when we get access to a real field.
Right now I’m imagining our driver hitting the charging station ramp at full beans and windmilling a cone on to a high goal Jordan style.
Overall speed might be important, but I think quickness is more important.
During the playoffs uninterrupted full field sprints will not be the norm. It will be sprint from the loading zone to mid field where traffic and defenders will cause a slow down. Then there will be a second sprint to the scoring grid.
Additionally the loading area is tight and the grid is even tighter when two or more robots are trying to access the areas. Overall speed doesn’t help in these areas, but quickness does.
I agree. “According to the calculator” even geared for a max possible speed of 18 ft/sec our initial acceleration is traction limited, not gearing limited.
I think if you score all your game pieces on and have 3 balanced you should be able to stop the match early. That would prevent the tie as long as you do it first.
3D strat seems too close to a potential G203 given the field layout this year. While “2 ROBOTS independently playing defense on 2 opponent ROBOTS is not a violation of this rule” is in then blue box, I could see an argument for 3 robots playing defense on 3 robots be argued as violations of b,c, or d blue box examples.
Good point, you never know how the refs are going to call things which are subjective. Perhaps whichever robot takes the longest to get settled on the charging station should just do that.
