First Meeting of 2011

We decided not to attend a Remote Kickoff this year, which was a combination of the weather, and that our mentors would be going to WPI to retrieve the kit. We met at 4, instead. We basically outlined a few things, and plan on breaking out into full design phase on Monday.

1. We used a mathematical analysis of the game’s scoring to determine the most important parts of the game to specialize in. Our goal is to score one ubertube on the top row during autonomous. Then score as many tubes as possible on the top row, optimistically 6. And finally, launch and score our minibot first. This would yield a total of 78 points scored by our team alone. Possible, yes. Extremely ambitious, yes. We’re thinking 3 tubes per team is more of a reasonable goal. Strategy wise, we looked at the role of the Analyst, and decided that we would have to take into consideration different scenarios where the other team was about to complete a logo, and what the advantage of playing defense on them would be to prevent double points.

2. We unanimously rejected mecanum. ‘Nuff said.

3. We determined the best way to communicate with HPs is to have lights on top of the bot to indicate which tube to load (red, blue, white), then have hand signals indicating the tube was loaded. We figured lights would take very little effort and power while being cool and innovative.

4. The tubes are too difficult to throw across the field. We decided loading through the lanes was the most reliable way to get tubes, without letting your opponent steal them. On the same note, we decided against picking up tubes from the floor for simplicity’s sake.

5. We also decided that we we’re willing to forgo racking the bottom row, if it means more efficient racking on the middle and top. The points aren’t worth it.

6. After the meeting was over, half the robot design committee got together and decided we liked the idea of a lift (with one hinge to be deployed by a gas piston) as a way to rack tubes, similar to 254’s bot in 2007. The manipulator would be similar to 148’s in 2007. Nothing is finalized yet, but it’s a good start.

7. We decided to look at this year’s design more holistically early on, rather than each piece separately. The is primarily because the maneuverability of the chassis has a direct effect on how accurate the arm needs to be. The first decision made with this concept was that the need for mecanum maneuverability did not outweigh the detriments of getting pushed, and should your manipulator fail for any reason, a mecanum drive would be much less helpful for defense than a traction drive.

Stay tuned,

Jack & Chris