In response to this thread, I see a lot of teams who say it’s best to go over the bump, but not why it isn’t, or why it’s advantageous to go over the bridge.
So the topic here is: What are the advantages of the bridge vs. the bump? What are the advantages that the bump has that the bridge doesn’t, and vice versa?
I think that with the right setup, you can traverse the bump a lot faster than the bridge.
Why handicap your robot?
I personally think, contrary to majority belief, that being able to lower and use the bridge is a much higher priority because just being able to lower the bridge, can enable a team to gain a vast amount of points at the end of the round. Additionally, the bump may prove harmful to any unprotected electronics/mechanics underneath the robot. Plus, there is always the possibility that the robot my become stranded balanced on top of the bump (unless it is designed to not do so).
Hope this helps.
We looked at the game and our strategies and thought “Honestly, how many times will we cross that middle section throughout the match”. Our answer: 2, maybe 3 times maximum. We can use the extra time/weight elsewhere, most likely improving our bridge manipulator. Not only will we be better on the bridge, but we will be able to play our strategies much better than if we stuck to the bump.
Your autonomous mode should do two things - make two 6-point baskets and go tip one or both of the allowed bridges to get the balls from it(them) onto your side. In fact, a good argument can be made for tipping the middle bridge your way should be your first priority, then return to the key edge (detecting that little bump) to make your free-throws. I see no advantage at all to kinect control. It is merely cape-waving FIRST-style. Perhaps I’ll be surprised at Suffield Shakedown. I still can’t guess how.
So dealing with the bridge is more important than crossing that barrier.
We’ve found a few good ones, though I won’t share them, think along the lines of this: You don’t control how your robot does things, but maybe in a different way. Good luck! 
Honestly, I don’t think building your robot to traverse the bump is worth the effort. How many times do you really need to cross it?
The idea of going over the barrier appears to me as the choice of keeping the robot unpredictable to remain effective in the challenge. If a team is too limited, then other teams through scouting will notice and counter. Two bridges, one of them on the side requiring time to cross, seems quite limiting especially in the elimination matches with higher level play.
Our robot’s bridge device is the same device for climbing over the barrier, but climbing over the barrier will probably be our prefered method because it allows us to cross the field wherever and whenever we want to.
There are a variety of match scenerios that would show crossing the barrier is valuable. There are a variety of playing styles or strategies where crossing the barrier would be valuable… particularly on defense.
In our minds it wasn’t an ability that required alot of time, energy or resources, esspecially when we combined it with our bridge tilting ability, so we wanted to have it. Time will tell how valuable it really is in a match… but my guess would be if more than 1/2 the robots on the field couldn’t cross the barrier it could be really problematic and slow the pace of scoring and the match in general.
It is nearly always advantageous to be able to go anywhere on the field quickly.
The bridges do not allow this by design. IMHO most of the “good” teams this year will be able cross the barrier with minimal effort on their part. However, these teams will also be able to manipulate the bridge in order to balance for the end game bonus. If you had to choose one, the bridge is the better choice as it allows you to attempt the end game without alliance assistance.
I really can’t think of an amazing reason that all good teams must be able to traverse the bump, but it does depend a whole lot on strategy. In 2010, the last game with zones separated by barriers, 254 and many other teams like it decided to only travel through the tunnel, and they played magnificently. (My team pretty much decided that going over the bump that year was pretty much imperative for success.) 469 didn’t even plan on switching between zones at all!
Agree with JABot67. In 2010, out team theorized that the tunnel would be too easily dependable to bother even designing the robot to go through. We were able (and fairly effective at) traversing the bump. As we all know, the tunnel did not get defended very much at all, and teams (like 254) used it with no problem.
This year, we have elected to go over the bump. Why? We again think (and probably incorrectly) that the bridge will be too easy to defend. Also, we want to be fast, and lining up with and crossing the bridge is not “fast.”
In 2010 we couldn’t go over the bump (well…we could, but it was difficult for us. We did it once in an off-season event at Kettering Kickoff) which we thought might cause us trouble since it seemed that one tunnel would be easy to defend. It seems like we rarely were defended from the tunnel - even in eliminations on Newton field. This year, there will be two bridges to cross - one of which can’t be defended without penalty…you can’t touch the opposing alliances bridge or robot in contact with the bridge. That being said, I also agree that it’s possible to design for crossing the barrier much quicker than the bridge. It’s really up to the team to decide if the reward for being able to cross the barrier is worth the effort of design a robot that can do it.
Because there may be designs which allow you to be more effective at one task by forgoing another task. Take 469 in 2010 as an example, how many times did they cross the bumps OR travel through the tunnel? It netted them 4 blue banners and a CMP finalist medal.
Strategies can sometimes call for other systems to be sacrificed.
I agree, few will be crossing the field very often, but having the capability to do both the bump and bridge can be very important in the occasional situation
Pros: Can cross the field quickly, can play better defense, can get around defense more easily, faster crossing time, more appealing when choosing alliances
Cons: Heavier robot (if you use separate mechanisms for the bridge and bump), takes more time to develop and build, more expensive
Overall, it is good to be able to cross the bump, but it would probably be better to focus on other aspects of the robot such as shooting (unless you plan on doing hardcore defense, where it can be good to be able to quickly go over the bump)
It’s all about strategy. If you have a killer strategy that prohibits crossing the barrier then great, otherwise I’d suggest a more flexible solution.
Truthfully, it’s all about your startegy, and your capabilities as a team.
Why go over the bump is like asking why be able to score from different places on the field. Some teams are only going to be able to score from one place or only go over the bridge. If you and your partners can only go over the bridge or only score from the same place then the game is going to be very slow and low scoring for you.
Being able to traverse both the bridge and the bump, as well as being able to reliably score from at least 3 places on the field is going to make you a better partner to play with, as you will not be interfering with your partners as much.
We saw the bridge as the main priority since it allowed a considerable bonus at the end of the match, and also allowed traversal into the other half of the field. So why cross the bump? In the case of traffic issues (and even just normally) it will likely save time, and the relatively simple mechanism we are using for the bridge will work identically for the bump, requiring only a more specific wheel configuration. So for us, the extra design complexity was minimal, so the minimal cost was worth the potential gain (though it may prove only marginal).
The game would not be very slow and low scoring if there were three robots on the same alliance that could only score from one place (e.g. the key). You just need a good passing game, and reliable pick-up from the ground. With this strategy, robots would not have to cross the bridge very much.
Also I have my doubts on more than a handful of robots being able to accurately score long-distance. I may be wrong, but it’s the way I see it and a whole new discussion could be made out of it.